M/S. MEDIHAUXE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that it had obtained Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The assessee wished to utilize the Direct Taxes ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ to settle the dispute.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
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 V. DURGA RAO & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed these appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 19, Chennai in dated 29.08.2019 & ITA No. 47/18-19 dated 29.07.2019 for the assessment years 2015- 16 & 2016-17, respectively.
:- 2 -: 3319 & 3321/Chny/2019
The above cases were heard through video conferencing. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the letters dated 24.10.2020 and submitted that the assessee wanted to utilize the Direct Taxes ‘Vivad 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 No. 3 from the designated authority.
The Bench has considered the material. Since the assessee submits that it has obtained Form No.3 and seeks withdrawal of appeals, therefore, we dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee, supra, as withdrawn. However, liberty is given to the assessee to restore the appeals, in the event if the designated authority, for any reason reject the application filed by the assessee under section 4 of the said Act.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th June, 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