BMT IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD- 17 (1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6383/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 August 2021AY 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 that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had received acknowledgement. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2014-15. The assessee later submitted that it had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and requested to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas settlement scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, DR
Hearing: 05/08/2021Pronounced: 05/08/2021

ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2014-15 dated 14.08.2017 and arises out of assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

2.

At the outset, when the appeal was called out for hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of calls. Vide letter dated 15.06.2021, assessee submitted that it has filed the necessary declaration under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and confirmed the receipt of Form-3 and prayer to withdraw the appeal.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →