What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application and dismissed the assessee's appeal. This was done in line with a Madras High Court decision, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they did not succeed under the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme.

The assessee preferred cross-appeals before the ITAT for assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10. The assessee sought an adjournment as they intended to opt for the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be adjourned due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme.

I Pay Clearing Services P.Ltd vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, A.R

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, D.R

Hearing: 15.12.2020Pronounced: 23.12.2020

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

The above titled cross appeals have been preferred against the order dated 04.10.2012 & 23.11.2012 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2007-08 & 2009-10.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee is going in for Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme under the Direct Tax Act, 2020, therefore, the case may kindly be adjourned.

Since the assessee is going for Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme, 2020 the adjournment application by the assessee is rejected. Besides, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court Nannu Samy Mohan (HUF) vs. ACIT TCA No.372 of 2020 with the liberty to assessee to get this appeal recalled in case assessee does not succeed in VSVS 2020. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2020.

I PAY CLEARING SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Latest GST High Court judgments