What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object.

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee subsequently filed a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the withdrawal of the appeal due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

Prasant V Gadiyar vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR

Hearing: 07/01/2021Pronounced: 09/03/2021

आदेश / O R D E R

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.12.2017 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 34, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT (A)”] relevant to A.Y. 2008-09.

At the outset, when the appeal was called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that he has filed the necessary declaration under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020). He filed letter dated 23.12.2020 confirming the receipt of Form-3 and prayer to withdraw the appeal. 3. The Ld. DR also did not object to course so suggested.

Shri Prasant V. Gadiyar 4. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn based on the letter submitted before us and assessee has filed the relevant Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, 2020.

PRASANT V GADIYAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(2)(5), 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