UMA METAL COMAPNY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(5), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and had applied under it. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under sections 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee later filed a withdrawal letter stating their intention to settle the tax litigation under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020'.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn when the assessee has opted for a tax settlement scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the order if needed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
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) - 28, Mumbai, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
At the time hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Ld.AR has filed a letter dated 05-03-2021 that the assessee is intend to settle the tax litigation by Uma Metal Company, Mumbai 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.
We heard the Ld.DR and perused the material on record. Since the assessee has opted for ‘Vivaad se Vishwas Scheme 2020’ and has filed a letter dt 05-03- 2021 mentioning that the assessee has applied under VSVS 2020 and has received Form-3 from the Income Tax Department. 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that, no purpose will be served in keeping the appeal pending.Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn and the assessee is given liberty to move an application u/s 254(2) of the Act to recall the present order as per provisions of Law.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.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026