Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, for assessment year 2018-19. The assessee raised multiple grounds of appeal related to the dismissal of their appeal by the CIT(A)/NFAC and the denial of exemption claims.
Held
The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal can be permitted to be withdrawn as the dispute has been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
Sections Cited
250, 11, 10B, 10BB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 21.03.2023 pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. The learned CIT(A),NFAC is not justified to dismiss the appeal on ground of non-compliance of the notices issued u/s 250 as the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause for non-compliance of the notices so issued.
The Learned CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in passing the order u/s 250 dated 21.03.2023 ex-parte without stating the points for determination, decision thereon and the reason for decision.
3. The learned CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without considering the reply of the assessee furnished before the AO and without making any further enquiry as mandated u/s 250(4) of the Act.
4. The learned CIT(A) as well as learned AO are not justified to confirm and deny the exemption claimed u/s 11 on the ground that Form 10B was not filed before the filing of return of income as Form 108 was filed on 05-03-2020 well before completion of the assessment and filing of Form 10BB instead of Form 10B alongwith return is a technical mistake.
Page 2 of 3 5. The learned CIT(A) as well as learned AO are not justified to treat the interest over FDRs amounting to Rs 68,73,177/- as revenue receipt instead of capital receipt as the said interest was accrued on FDRs being part of Corpus and the same remained with the bank and no part of it was received by the appellant society during the year under consideration.
The learned CIT(A) as well as learned AO are not justified to treat the admission fees and development fees amounting to Rs 6234000/as regular fees instead of one time capital receipts and part of Corpus fund and not the current income of the appellant.
The learned CIT(A) as well as learned AO are not justified to treat the interest over saving bank account amounting to Rs 92,682/- as revenue receipt as the said interest was accrued on SB account and remained with the bank and has been directly taken into Corpus and no part of it was received by the appellant society during the year under consideration.
The appellant craves leave to add / amend / substitute / modify any ground of appeal
at the time of hearing.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 15.04.2025 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record.
The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal.
In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, a liberty is given to the assessee for approaching the Tribunal for restoration of this appeal in the event of failure of settlement of tax disputes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14/05/2025.