SOLID CONTIANERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6142/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 January 2021AY 2013-143 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to seek restoration if the matter is not settled under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. This was in line with a Madras High Court ruling on similar circumstances.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT concerning assessment year 2013-14. During the hearing, the assessee sought an adjournment as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and were awaiting resolution.

What were the issues?

The appeal involved issues related to the classification of income (house property vs. business), disallowance of business expenses, and set-off of brought forward losses. The primary issue leading to the dismissal was the assessee's enrollment in 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, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Khalsa, DR
Hearing: 04.01.2021Pronounced: 04.01.2021

This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) in Appeal No. CIT (A)-14/IT- 40/16-17 vide order dated 18.06.2018. The assessment was framed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -8(2)(2), Mumbai (in short DCIT) for the A.Y. 2013- 14 under section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide order dated 22.02.2016.

2.

The assessee has raised three issues in this appeal i.e. (i) Income from sub-leasing the premises as Income from House Property as against the Business Income claimed by assessee. (ii) Disallowance of business expenses at 50% (iii) not allowing the set off of brought forward losses.

3.

When this appeal was called out for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee sought adjournment stating as under:

“With reference to the above captioned matter fixed for hearing today i.e. 04.01.2021, we respectfully submit that notwithstanding the merits of the appeal, the assessee has availed for “Vivad se Vishwas” scheme. A copy of the Application in Form No.1 and Form No.2 is enclosed herewith for your reference.”

4.

The ld. Counsel stated that assessee has filed necessary declaration under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and is awaiting the resolution of the matter. He stated that the moment, he receives Form-3 from the competent authority, will withdraw the appeal. In response to the said, the Bench suggested and he fairly accepted that he has no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn as long as his right for recalling of the order are protected, in the event, for some or other reason, the matter being not settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

5.

The ld. DR also not objected to the above proposal.

6.

In view of the above, after hearing both the sides, we dismiss this appeal as withdrawn, subject to his right for revival of the appeal in case due to some unforeseen reasons, the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee is at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of his appeal in that event. This issue is settled by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Nannusamy Mohan (HUF) vs. ACIT (TCA No. 372 of 2920, order dated 16.10.2020) wherein on identical circumstances, the assessee’s appeal

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04.01.2021

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →