What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall if the declaration is not accepted.

The assessee filed an appeal against an order for AY 2009-10. The assessee's representative sent an email stating they had opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, but had not yet received Form No. 3.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.

Mr. Samitkumar Jain vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

For Respondent: Smt. Smita Verma (DR)

Pronounced: 03/02/2021

Date of hearing 03-02-2021 Date of Pronouncement 03/02/2021 O R D E R

Per Saktijit Dey, JM

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 13-06-2019 of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-44, Mumbai for the assessment year 2009-10.

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. However, the Authorized Representative of the assessee has sent an e-mail on 27-01-2021 stating that the assessee had opted for settling the 2 ITA 4944/Mum/2019 dispute arising in this appeal under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Further, it is stated, Form No.3 has not yet been received by the assessee.

Heard learned Departmental Representative and perused materials on record. Considering the fact that the assessee has filed declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 for settling the dispute arising in this appeal, I am inclined to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. However, in the unlikely event of assessee’s declaration not being accepted by the department, liberty is granted to the assessee to seek recall of this order and restoration of the appeal.

In the result, appeal is dismissed with aforementioned liberty. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 03 /02/2021. Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated : 03/ 02/2021. Pavanan, Sr.P.S (on contract)

3 ITA 4944/Mum/2019

MR. SAMITKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 32 (3)(3), 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