SLIVER SPARK APPAREL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-44 (NOW KNOWN AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1)), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER BENCH The assessee has filed the captioned appeals against the three orders dated 30.06.2017 pertaining to the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and one order dated 10.10.2017 pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai. Vide impugned orders dated 30.06.2017, the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeals filed by the assessee against the assessment Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 orders passed u/s 153A r.w.s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and vide order dated 10.10.2017 the Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Act, for the assessment year 2012-13. Since, these appeals pertain to the same assessee for the different assessment years and the issues raised by the assessee are identical, the same were clubbed and heard together for the sake of convenience and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order. 2. Vide 5773/Mum/2017, the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in confirming the disallowance of expenses and depreciation to the extent of 50% in respect of the luxury sports car owned by the assessee company. Similarly, vide the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in confirming the addition on account of depreciation to the extent of 50% in respect of luxury sports car owned by the assessee. 3. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant/assessee submitted that assessee has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, therefore these appeals may be kept in abeyance. 4. The Ld. departmental representative did not oppose the aforesaid submissions made by the Ld. counsel. 5. In the case of M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF) vs. ACIT, TCA No 372 of 2020, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn in which the counsel had made the similar submissions before the Hon’ble Court. The observations of the Hon’ble High Court are as under:- “3. The learned counsel for the appellant / assessee, on instructions, submitted that the appellant / assessee intends to avail the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme („VVS Scheme‟ for brevity) and in this regard, the assessee is taking steps to file the application / declaration in Form No. I. 4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the President