SHRI. HITEN PRAVINCHANDRA DALAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18 (1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7223/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 August 2021AY 2013-142 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration if the settlement is not finalized.

What were the facts?

The assessee opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 to settle pending matters for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The assessee received Form 3 from the designated authority, indicating settlement.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas settlement scheme.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 “H” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Respondent: Shri. Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Hearing: 02/08/2021Pronounced: 02/08/2021

ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the CIT(A)-53, Mumbai, dated 23.09.2019, which in turn arises from the orders passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016 and 29.12.2016 for assessment years 2013-14 and A.Y 2014-15, respectively.

2.

The assessee’s counsel has placed on record letters dated 01.07.2021, wherein it is stated by him that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 in order to settle the aforesaid matters pending before the Tribunal for A.Y 2013-14 and A.Y 2014-15. It is further stated by him that the assessee had for both the aforementioned years received “Form 3”, dated 27.04. 2021 from the designated authority (copies enclosed). Accordingly, it is stated by the assessee’s counsel that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the captioned appeals for both the aforementioned years may be allowed to be withdrawn.

3.

The ld. D.R did not controvert the aforesaid factual position as had been canvassed before us by the assessee’s counsel vide his letters dated 01.07.2021.

Shri. Hiten Pravinchand Dalal Vs. ITO 18(1)(3), Mumbai & 7224/Mum/2019 2 4. In view of the above, we dismiss both the captioned appeals for A.Y 2013-14 and A.Y 2014-15 as withdrawn, subject to a rider that in the unlikely event of the matter not being resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, then, the assessee shall have liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of his aforesaid appeals.

5.

Resultantly, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn subject to the observation recorded hereinabove. Order pronounced in the open court on 02/08/2021. Sd/- Sd/- (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Ravish Sood) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 02.08.2021 PS: Rohit Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent.

3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →