Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 432/JPR/2022
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Mr. Krishan Dev Verma The ITO, Vs. 801, Rama Krishana Ward-1(4), Apartments, Shipra Path, Jaipur. Mansarover, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABJPV9447Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Rohan Sogani, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 08 /01/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 08/01/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member,
By way of present appeal, the assessee has challenged order dated 15.10.2022, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. Matter pertains to assessment year 2014-15.
Mr. Krishan Dev Verma vs. ITO 2. The assessee was in appeal before Learned CIT(A), feeling aggrieved by penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereby penalty of Rs. 3,18,747/- was levied against him. Said penalty was levied on the ground that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income by way of non disclosure of the true income.
It may be mentioned here that the quantum proceedings were also conducted, as regards the same assessment year 2014-15 and the same led to assessment order, whereby total income of the assessee was calculated at Rs. 16,44,154/-, due to two additions i.e. one u/s 68 of the Act, and the other because of disallowance of commission paid on a sum of Rs. 12,25,080/-.
As is available from the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before Learned CIT(A) challenging the quantum assessment, and the said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2019, confirming the above two additions.
Mr. Krishan Dev Verma vs. ITO As noticed above, the penalty order were also challenged by the assessee by way of appeal, but Learned CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed the same vide impugned order.
During pendency of this appeal, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted an application alleging therein that the assessee has filed Form No. 1 before the competent authority, under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, thereby opting to settle the quantum assessment. Ld. AR for the appellant has further submitted that the present appeal arises out of the penalty order, pertaining to the same assessment order, and as such the appellant is going to submit application under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, for settlement, as regards the penalty order as well. Ultimately, Ld. AR for the appellant has urged that the present appeal be dismissed as having been withdrawn, with liberty to get the same revived in case no settlement is arrived at under the said scheme-2024.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, prayer of Ld. AR for the appellant for withdrawal of this appeal is allowed, and this appeal is hereby dismissed, as having been withdrawn, with liberty that in case no settlement is arrived at between the parties as regards subject matter of the Mr. Krishan Dev Verma vs. ITO appeal, the appellant shall at liberty to file appropriate application for restoration of the appeal, in accordance with law. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/01/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08/01/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Mr. Krishan Dev Verma, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(4), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत