Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 53 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”]. Relevant to the A.Y. 2016-17.
The assessee has raised the following grounds .:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.18,55,000/- by treating the jewellery found during the course of search as alleged unexplained investment, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of 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 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 A.Y.2016-17 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response to the suggestion from the Bench, he fairly accepted that he has no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn as long as his right for revival of the appeal are protected, in the event of, for some unfortunate reason, the matter being not settled under the Vivad se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.
The Ld. DR also did not object to disgrace so suggested.
In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, subject to be rider that in the unlikely event of matter not being resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the assessee shall have liberty to approach the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.