SANDIP MANOHARRAV MAHESHKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(5), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 504/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 July 2022AY 2015-163 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 noted that the assessee had submitted Form No.5 for full and final settlement of tax arrears. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for delay. Subsequently, the assessee filed Form No.5 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, declaring full and final settlement of tax arrears for the disputed tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal becomes infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme for settlement of tax arrears.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC-2” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.06.2022Pronounced: 13.07.2022

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad for A.Y. 2015-16 which was dismissed on the ground of delay by the CIT(A).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in passing the appellate order without appreciating the fact that the adjournment application was filed and acknowledged on 10.01.2019 and it was informed from the office of the ld. CIT(A) that the matter shall be kept for hearing on 12.02.2019. Copy of adjournment application filed and acknowledged on 10.01.2019 is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure-A. 2. the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in not condoning the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal before him.

3. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in not dealing the appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 30 days.

4. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case ought to have appreciated the written submission and paper-book filed by the Appellant and should have dealt with the appeal on merits and merely dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay of 30 days. 5. The ld. Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case ought to have appreciated that the action of ld. AO in making addition of Rs.10,09,650/- u/s. 68 of the Act was unwarranted and illegal in the eyes of law.”

3.

At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. After going through the records the assessee sent form No.5 under Section 5(2) read with Section 6 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 through post which was received on 30.05.2022 by the Registry of the ITAT. As per the Form No.5, the assessee has paid Rs.2,61,042/- in respect of disputed tax in ITA No.504./Ahd/2009 (for A.Y. 2015-16) and the said amount is declared as full and final settlement of tax arrears. The said Form no.5 dated 18.09.2021 is taken on record.

4.

Since the Department has issued Form No.5, the appeal becomes infructuous and hence dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 13th day of July, 2022.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →