What did the Tribunal hold?

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

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2003-04. The assessee later filed a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

Chandbibi Zaidi vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT&

For Appellant: Shri N. P. Agarwal, AR

Hearing: 19/01/2021Pronounced: 17/02/2021

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 29.11.2018 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 60, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT (A)”] relevant to A.Y. 2003-04.

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 14.01.2021 confirming the receipt of Form-3 and prayer to withdraw the appeal. 3. The Ld. DR also did not object to course so suggested.

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 In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn based on the letter submitted before us and assessee has filed the relevant Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, 2020.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17/02/2021 Sd/– Sd/– (JUSTICE P.P. BHATT) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 17/02/2021 Dhananjay (Sr.PS)

CHANDBIBI ZAIDI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CC- 43, 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