SUNDARESAN ELUMALAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON-CORPORATE WARD 8(2), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission about obtaining Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order. During the hearing, the assessee did not appear but submitted a letter stating their intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश /O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 9, Chennai in dated 21.09.2020 for the assessment year 2017-18.
:-2-: ITA No: 947/Chny/2020
At the time of hearing, None appeared for the assessee but we find that the assessee has submitted a letter dated 23.08.2021 stating, inter alia, that the assessee wanted to utilize the Direct Taxes ‘ Vivas se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ to settle pending dispute relating to Direct Taxes and in this regard the assessee has filed Form No. 1 and Form 2 and obtained Form 3 from the designated authority and hence pleads to withdraw the appeal. We heard the Ld. DR.
The Bench has considered the material. Since the assesee submits that he has obtained Form No. 3 and seeks withdrawal of appeal, therefore, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee, supra, as withdrawn. However liberty is given to the assessee/Revenue to restore the appeal, in the event of the designated authority, for any reason reject the application filed by the assessee under section 4 of the said Act.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced on 03rd September, 2021 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 4
- Prakash Dayaram Chandnani, Rajkot vs ITO Ward 2(1)(1), RajkotITA 927/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026