ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. RAMASETHU INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 184/VIZ/2024Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 September 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had opted for the DTVSV Scheme and received Form No.4, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rendered infructuous and did not survive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) which arose from an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) for A.Y. 2018-19. During the appeal proceedings, the assessee company, Ramasethu Infrastructure Private Limited, opted for the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (DTVSV, 2024) and was issued "Form No.4" by the Pr.CIT, Vijayawada.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal survives when the assessee has opted for the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and obtained Form No.4.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench

For Appellant: Shri Badicala Yadagiri

O R D E R प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

1.

The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 06.03.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under Section 143(3)

2 Ramasethu Infra Structure Private Limited of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 16.04.2021 for A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

Shri P. Vinod, Advocate, the learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee company at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that as the assessee company had opted for Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (in short “DTVSV, 2024”) for the captioned appeal i.e No.4” by the Pr.CIT, Vijayawada, therefore, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

3.

The Ld.AR has placed on our record a letter dated 02.09.2025 along with copy of “Form No.4” evidencing the aforesaid factual position.

4.

Per contra, Shri Badicala Yadagiri, learned CIT-Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. CIT-DR”) did not raise any objection to the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the Revenue in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee company had opted for Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (in short “DTVSV, 2024”) and had been issued “Form No.4” by the prescribed authority.

5.

Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that as the assessee company has opted for Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (in short “DTVSV, 2024”) and has been issued Form No.4 by the prescribed authority, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue does not survive and is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

3 Ramasethu Infra Structure Private Limited

6.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd September, 2025. S (एस. बालकृष्णन) (रिीश सूद) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) (RAVISH SOOD) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 03.09.2025. TYNM/sps

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →