Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
(A) This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi, [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 19.01.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15. Grounds taken in this appeal of Assessee are as under:
“1. That the CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.8,50,374 under Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) without appreciating that the same represents write off of business loan/advances/security deposits which is allowable as business loss under Section 28 of the Act. 1. That the CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.31,25,000 being amount withheld by contractee (DDA) on Page 1 of 4 .-1534/De/2018 Architects Bureau account of alleged nonperformance of the contract without appreciating that the same is allowable as bad debts in terms of Section 36(l)(vii) of the Act. 2.1 That the CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessing officer only disputed the year of claim of above debts (which is legally impermissible); and did not dispute the allowablity of the above bed debts per-se.
That the CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad- hoc addition of vehicle maintenance and other expenditure to the extent of Rs. 19,816 alleging the same to be of personal nature without appreciating that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any defect in the books of accounts produced by the Appellant. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary from the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
(B) At the time of hearing, at the outset, the learned Counsel for the Assessee informed us that the assessee has opted to settle the aforementioned appeals under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (“VSVS”, for short) and that the assessee has already filed the relevant forms. The Ld. Counsel for assessee also drew our attention to letter dated 12th January, 2021 filed in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) giving intimation for the same, and requesting to withdraw this appeal.
(B.1) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for assessee as well as the learned Senior Departmental Representative (“Ld. CIT- DR”, for short) submitted before us that this appeal may be treated as withdrawn and may be dismissed on account of the aforesaid VSVS. After due consideration, and in view of the foregoing; and as both sides have agreed to this; we are of the view that this appeal has become infructuous, and treat this appeal as withdrawn on account of the aforesaid VSVS. Accordingly, this appeal having become infructuous, is hereby dismissed as withdrawn, subject to settlement of the disputes in the appeals under the aforesaid VSVS. .-1534/De/2018 Architects Bureau (C) Before we part, we hereby clarify, by way of abundant caution, that if for some reason the disputes under these appeals before us are not settled under the aforesaid VSVS, then the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of this appeal, in accordance with law.
(D) In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. This order has been already pronounced on 10th February, 2021 in Open Court, in the presence of Representatives of both sides; after conclusion of the hearing.