ISLAM GYMKHANA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(E)-3, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5437/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 March 2021AY 2012-132 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee retains liberty to seek restoration if the settlement fails.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order. The assessee later filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, to settle the matter. A certificate under the Act was received.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu, A.R
For Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Paredeshi, D.R
Hearing: 03/03/2021Pronounced: 03/03/2021

ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-3, Mumbai, which in turn arises from the penalty order passed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 30.03.2015 for assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has e-filed a letter on 2nd March, 2021, wherein it is stated that it had filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 in order to settle the aforesaid matter pending before the Tribunal and has received the certificate under sub-section (1) of Sec. 5 of Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 from the designated authority. In support of its aforesaid claim the assessee had enclosed alongwith its letter ‘Form 3’ issued by the designated authority. It is stated by the assessee that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the captioned appeal may allowed to be withdrawn.

3.

The ld. D.R did not controvert the aforesaid factual position as was canvassed before us.

2 Islam Gymkhana Vs. ITO (E)-3

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →