RINKU RAJESH RAI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3 (2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 86/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 September 2021AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A). The assessee subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee can withdraw an appeal after opting for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JM) & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM)

For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (DR)
Hearing: 14/09/2021Pronounced: 14/09/2021

O R D E R

PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 18.10.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai for the assessment year 2014-15. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, no one was present for the assessee. However, the assessee has filed letter dated 14.09.2021 seeking withdrawal of the appeal, as, she has opted for settling the dispute arising in the appeal under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 and has also received certificate in Form-3 issued by the designated authority. 3. The learned Departmental Representative has no objection to the aforesaid request of the assessee.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →