SATISH CHANDRA,SOLAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3, NOIDA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's election to opt for the DTVSV Scheme. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeals if they are unable to avail the benefit of the VSV Scheme for genuine reasons.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against orders passed by the CIT(A) under sections 250, 143(2), and a penalty under 271(1)(c) for AY 2014-15, raising grounds concerning ex-parte orders and upholding of various additions/disallowances. During the hearing, the assessee informed the Tribunal of their decision to opt for "The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024" and requested to withdraw the appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte orders and upholding of additions/disallowances by the CIT(A) were justified, and whether the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 143(2),Section 271(1)(c),Section 54,Section 43B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA&
The captioned appeals arises from the respective orders passed under section 250 arises reference to assessment order passed under s. 143(2) and penalty passed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment year 2014-15 in question.
The assessee has raised following grounds in both these appeals:-
[Assessment Year : 2014-15] 1. “That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in passing the ex-parte order u/s 250 of the Income Act which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and needs to be quashed.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & Legal facts of the case in passing the ex-parte order without according proper opportunity of being heard which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and needs to be quashed.
3. That the Ed. CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in passing the ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and needs to be quashed.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in upholding addition of Rs. 52,45,641/ on account of disallowance u/s 54 of the & 46/Del/2024 Satish Chandra vs ACIT Income Tax Act which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and needs to be deleted.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in upholding addition of Rs. 37,123/- on account of disallowance u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and needs to be deleted.
That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in upholding the adhoc addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of disallowance of expenses which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and needs to be deleted.”
[Assessment Year : 2014-15] 1. “That the Ld.CIT(A has erred in law & facts of the case in passing the ex-parte order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and needs to be quashed.
2. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in passing the ex-parte order without according proper opportunity of being heard which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and needs to be quashed.
3. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of th case in upholding the penalty imposed amounting to Rs.12,46,571/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and needs to be deleted.”
When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the instruction of the client, the assessee is opting for the ongoing “The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024”. The learned Counsel thus submitted that the assessee does not seek to pursue the said appeals owing to exercise of option for availing VSV Scheme and consequently requested that the written application for withdrawal of appeals may please be granted.
The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue stated that he has no objection to withdraw the appeals as sought on behalf of the assessee.
In the light of oral/written request made on behalf of the assessee, the captioned appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. However, in the event, the assessee fails to avail the benefit of VSV Scheme for any bonafide reasons, then the assessee concerned shall be at liberty to seek restoration of original appeals for hearing before ITAT in accordance with law.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
