ANIL KESHORAM SINGHAL,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 26, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT (A)”] relevant to A.Y. 2006-07.

At the outset, when the appeal was called out for hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of calls. It was brought to our notice letter dated 03.02.2021 that assessee has filed the necessary declaration under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020). Vide said letter, he confirmed the receipt of Form- 1 & 2 and prayer to withdraw the appeal. He prayed that its right for revival of the appeal is Shri Anil Keshoram Singhal protected, in the event of, for some unfortunate reason, the matter being not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

The Ld. DR did not object to course so suggested.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We notice that assessee filed the letter for withdrawal. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the assessee to revive the appeals in the event application filed by the assessee under VSVS fails to mature. It is further made clear that if the assessee /appellant seeks to restore the appeal in the event assessee's declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS. [ Re. M/s. Nannusamy Mohan(HUF) vs. ACIT in T.C.A No.372 of 2020 decided on 16/10/2020 by Hon'ble Madras High Court]. 5. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the rider that in the unlikely event of matter not being resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the assessee shall have liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of its appeal.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn – subject to the observation above.