NARENDRA SETHIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2016/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 September 2022AY 2014-152 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. If the scheme proposal is not accepted, the assessee can apply to recall the order dismissing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020' scheme and filed the necessary forms. The competent authority under the scheme has received Form No. 3.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 12.09.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

On the perusal of application filed by the assessee dated 03.08.2022, we note that the assessee has opted for the scheme under “Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020” (hereinafter “the Scheme”) and filed Form No. 1 and 2 before the competent authority Form no. 3 has already received from the competent authority.

Narendra Sethia 3. In case if the competent authority under the scheme does not accept the proposal moved by the assessee for settlement under the scheme then, it is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order dismissing the appeal as withdrawn.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as dismissed in terms as stated supra. Order is pronounced in the open court on 19th September, 2022

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →