I.T.O.,WARD-3(1), GANGTOK vs. KANEYALAL MALOO, EAST SIKKIM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2649/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 January 2021AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and paid the tax. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeal pending.

What were the facts?

The revenue preferred an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12. The assessee had filed declarations under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act and paid the demanded tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal should be dismissed as the assessee has settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap(KZ) &Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]

Pronounced: 15.01.2021

ORDER Per Bench: This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), Siliguri dated 16.10.2019 for AY 2011-12.

2.

At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee Shri Gopal Choudhury submitted that the assessee had filed Form 1 and 2 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act in respect of this appeal and the tax demanded as per Form 3 issued has been duly paid and a copy of the Taxpayer’s counterfoil is available in file, which is before us. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that since the assessee has opted for the Scheme for the AY 2011-12, there is no point in keeping the impugned appeal pending. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that assessee has opted for the said scheme and Form 3 has been issued by the Department and tax has been paid, therefore, we dismiss the impugned appeal of the revenue.

3.

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court.

Sd/-(P. M. Jagtap) Sd/-(Aby. T. Varkey) Vice President Judicial Member Dated : 15.01.2021

Kaneyalal Maloo. AY 2011-12 JD(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – ITO, Ward-3(1), Gangtok 2 Respondent – Shri Kaneyalal Maloo, 305/1, Rongli Bazar, rongli, Gangtok, East Sikkim 737131. 3. CIT(A)-Siliguri. (sent through e-mail) 4. CIT, siliguri 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →