What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending given the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee intended to settle tax litigation by opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020'. The assessee filed an application under the scheme, and the revenue had no objections.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal should continue when the assessee had opted for a settlement scheme to resolve the tax litigation.

Mehraj R Merchant vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta, AR

For Respondent: Ms. Ridhi Mishra, DR

Hearing: 01.04.2021Pronounced: 05.04.2021

O R D E R

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Mumbai, passed u/s. 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

At the time hearing, the Ld.AR has submitted that the assessee is intend to settle the tax litigation by opting for ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020’ (VSVS2020) and filed an application in Form No. 1 & 2 under VSVS Rules 2020. Contra, the Ld. DR has no objections. Rashmi Gruha Nirman Pvt Ltd., Mumbai - 2 -

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Since the assessee has opted for ‘Vivaad se Vishwas Scheme 2020’ as envisaged by the Ld.AR. We are of the view that, no purpose will be served in keeping the appeal pending. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn and the assessee is given liberty to move an application u/s 254(2) of the Act to recall the present order as per provisions of Law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.04.2021 Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 05.04.2021 KRK, PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / Concerned CIT �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// 1. ( Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Rashmi Gruha Nirman Pvt Ltd., Mumbai - 3 -

Initial Date 1. Draft dictated on 04.04.21 PS 2. Draft placed before author 04.04.21 PS

3. Draft proposed & placed before PS the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by PS Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Dictation Pad is enclosed 2. Other Member… on whi

MEHRAJ R MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments