Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH,
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI RAMLAL NEGI,
O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai [for short “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to the A.Y.2013-14, whereby the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( for short “the Act”)
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs.2,54,96,184/- The AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 2,60,02,930/- after making addition of Rs.47,025/-on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and addition of Rs.4,59,717 on account of disallowance of loan processing fee. The assessee
CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the action of the AO. Against the said findings of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal .
The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following effective grounds:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) eared in dismissing the appeal. 2. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating fully and properly the facts of the case.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) eared in approving the action of the learned A.O.in disallowing the loan processing fee amounting 4,59,717 as capital expenditure.”
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted to settle its dispute under the provisions of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, therefore, the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to recall the order in case the dispute is not settled.
The Ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel.
Since the appellant/assessee has opted to settle its dispute under the provisions of Vivad se Vishwas Tak Act, 2020, we dismiss the present appeal as withdrawn with the liberty to recall the order in case the dispute is not settled under the provisions of the said Act.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.