NIRMAL BOT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT WARD -15(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5172/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 February 2021AY 2012-132 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee could seek revival of the appeal if the matter was not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

What were the facts?

The assessee company filed an appeal before the ITAT. During the hearing, the assessee stated that they had filed a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 and were awaiting resolution.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI

For Appellant: Ms. Hetal Vora, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R
Hearing: 03/02/2021Pronounced: 03/02/2021

ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)- 24, Mumbai dated 30.04.2019, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 13.03.2015 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

When this appeal was called for hearing, the ld. Authorised representative (for short “A.R”) for the assessee stated at bar that the assessee company had filed the necessary declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and is awaiting for a final resolution of the matter under the said scheme. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the ld. A.R had sought permission to withdraw the appeal, subject to the condition, that, in the event, if for some unforeseen reason the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, then, the assessee’s right for revival of the appeal would be protected.

3.

The ld. D.R did not object to the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the assessee.

2 Nirmal BOT Limited Vs. DCIT, Ward 15(2)(1)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →