What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal rejected the adjournment application and dismissed the assessee's appeal. This was done in line with a High Court decision, with liberty granted to recall the appeal if the assessee does not succeed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The assessee's appeal was filed against an order for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee sought an adjournment as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether an adjournment should be granted for an appeal when the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Anil P . Bansal vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI AMARJIT SINGHShriram

For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR

Hearing: 22/12/2020Pronounced: 23/12/2020

Date of Hearing 22/12/2020 Date of Pronouncement 23/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR (A.M):

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–55, Mumbai, dated 04/07/2018 and pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee has gone into for Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020, therefore, the case may kindly be adjourned.

Since the assessee has gone into for Vivad Se Viswas Scheme 2020, the adjournment application by the assessee is rejected. Besides, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal of the 2 Lalkar Securities Pvt.Ltd. assessee in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court Nannusamy 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 of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this: 23/12/2020

ANIL P . BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 17(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments