RAMASETHU INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

PDF · subscribers

ITA 202/VIZ/2024Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 August 2025AY 2018-19Bench: us. For the sake of clarity, the letter filed by the assessee company seeking liberty to withdraw the captioned appeal is culled out as under: BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM4 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, after considering the submissions from both parties and the evidence of the assessee opting for the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024" and the non-objection from the Department, allowed the withdrawal request. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee company filed an appeal against an order for A.Y. 2018-19, which originated from an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. At the hearing, the assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that the assessee had opted for the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024" and sought to withdraw the appeal, providing supporting documents including Form No.4. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn when the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the department has no objection.

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: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

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

The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.07.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 2 Ramasethu Infrastructure Private Ltd. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), dated 16.04.2021 for A.Y. 2018-19.

Shri Vinod, Advocate, the Authorized Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the assessee has opted for “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024" therefore, the aforementioned appeal having been referred as infructuous may be dismissed as withdrawn. The Ld. AR to buttress his claim, had placed on record a letter dt.04.08.2025 wherein he has sought liberty to withdraw the captioned appeal on the ground that the assessee company had opted for “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024". Also, the copy of Form No.4 dated, 18.06.2025 issued by the designated authority has been filed before us. For the sake of clarity, the letter filed by the assessee company seeking liberty to withdraw the captioned appeal is culled out as under :

-left blank intentionally- 3 Ramasethu Infrastructure Private Ltd.

Per contra, Dr. Satyasai Rath, learned CIT-Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR”) did not raise any objection to the seeking of liberty for dismissal of the captioned appeal as withdrawn.

4 Ramasethu Infrastructure Private Ltd.

After hearing both the parties, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee company viz. .

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is dismissed as 'withdrawn'.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th August, 2025. (एस. बालकृष्णन) (रिीश सूद) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) (RAVISH SOOD) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 06.08.2025. TYNM/sps

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →