ITO WARD 2 (2), THANE vs. SHRI. SHRIRAM CHHABIRAJ YADAV, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4618/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 February 2021AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought adjournment. Considering this, the Tribunal decided not to keep the appeal alive.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The assessee had applied for settlement of tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 25th April 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–1, Thane, deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") imposed by the Assessing Officer pertaining to the assessment year 2011–12.

2.

During the course of hearing, while perusing the material before us, we find that the assessee has filed a paper book accompanied by 2 Shri Shriram Chhabiraj Yadav the acknowledgement in Form–I and II of the declaration filed under Vivad Se Vishwas Tax Scheme, 2020, in view of the fact that the assessee has applied for settlement of tax dispute under the Scheme and sought adjournment till final disposal of tax settlement under the Scheme. A copy of such declaration is placed on record.

3.

The learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal by the assessee.

4.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and perused material on record. Considering the fact that the assessee has sought adjournment in hearing of the present appeal, as the assessee has applied for settling the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, we are of the opinion that there is no necessity of keeping this matter alive since the assessee has already applied for settlement of dispute under the Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to the dismissed as such. However, liberty is granted to the assessee to seek restoration of this appeal in the event the application filed under Vivad Se Vishwas Tax Scheme is not accepted by the Department. It is further made clear, in such eventuality if the assessee seeks restoration of the present appeal by filing misc. application, the delay, if any, should be condoned without insisting upon filing any application for condonation of delay. This is in view of 3 Shri Shriram Chhabiraj Yadav the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in order dated 16th October 2020, delivered in M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF) v/s ACIT, TCA no.372 of 2020. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

5.

In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.02.2021

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →