LALITHA MOHAN MADIMAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4190/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 December 2020AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek restoration if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2014-15. The assessee had filed a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and was awaiting resolution.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, with provisions for restoration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri Ramkrishna Lingsur (AR)
Hearing: 23/12/2020Pronounced: 23/12/2020

आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 38 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”]. Relevant to the A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds .:- “I. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. Appellant craves leave to add, to amend or to delete all or any of the grounds in this appeal.”

3. When this appeal was called out for hearing, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that he has filed the necessary declaration under Direct A.Y.2014-15 Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and is awaiting for final resolution of the matter under the said scheme. He submitted that upon completion of the necessary formalities, he will withdraw the appeal. In response to the suggestion from the Bench, he fairly accepted that he has no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn as long as his right for revival of the appeal are protected, in the event of, for some unfortunate reason, the matter being not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

4.

The Ld. DR also did not object to course so suggested.

5.

In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, subject to be rider that in the unlikely event of matter not being resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the assessee shall have liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of his appeal.

6.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn – subject to the observation above. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/12/2020 Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (AMARJIT SINGH) लेखध सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; दिनांक Dated : 23/12/2020 Vijay Pal Singh (Sr.PS)

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →