Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the JCIT(A)-9, Delhi. The grounds of appeal relate to the disallowance of cash deposits and treating amounts as short-term capital gains. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
Held
The assessee's counsel submitted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested the appeal be withdrawn. The CIT DR had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal can be dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
A.Y. 2014-15 Pawan Yadav, vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ekta Colony, Near Chandamgaon, Chhindwara Chhindwara, M.P., 480001 PAN:AILPY7272M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Meena, CIT DR Date of hearing: 20.05.2025 Date of pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. JCIT(A)-9, Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.07.2024 by which the appeal against the order of the ITO, Ward-2, Chhindwara dated 12.09.2016 have been dismissed as withdrawn. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. That the Ld. A.O. has in disallowing the erred cash deposits of Rs. 46,42,500.00 disregarding the actual facts, cash book produced, evidences submitted as a proof towards cash deposit. That considering the facts and evidences the cash deposit disallowance is liable to be quashed. 1.2 That Ld. A.O. has failed to consider that cash deposits have been withdrawn also and unused cash after withdrawal has been redeposited. That the fact of redeposit has not been considered by the Ld. A.O. and disregarding the same entire cash deposit without considering withdrawals and redeposit have been disallowed which is against facts and liable to the deleted. 1.3 The Ld. AO erred in law and facts of the case in adding Rs. 4642500 as unexplained cash credit in saving account, when all the evidence have been A.Y. 2014-15 Pawan Yadav submitted and such an action is an afterthought on assumption and presumption. The addition made therefore is liable to be deleted.
2. Disallowance treating the amounts as Short Term Capital Gains. 2.1 That the Ld. A.O. has disallowed amount of Rs. 32,98,000.00 treating the same as Short Term Capital Gains from Property transactions disregarding the actual facts and documents that the assessee was only a P.O.A. (Power Of Attorney Holder) for Sellers and he has not received the said amounts being disallowed. Thus the said act of disallowance is against facts, documents produced and is bad in law liable to be deleted. 2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer erred in law as much as on facts by erroneously making responsible for Short Term Capital Gain at Rs. 3298000/- on basis of assumption and presumption and without bringing any material facts on records. 2.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer erred in law as much as on facts by holding that appellant is responsible for paying Short Term Capital Gain merely on basis of third party statement and without giving opportunity for cross examination to the appellant which is against the principles of natural law and justice. No show cause notice was issued before addition for assessee cross examination or reply.
3. General Other 3.1 That assessee craves and pleads to add, alter, amend or delete any other grounds till or at the stage of hearing as per law.”
2. At the time of hearing of the case, it was submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Sh. Ashish Ternain, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’), that during the pendency of the appeal, the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and had settled the tax dispute with the Department. As proof of the same Form No.1, Form No.2 and the tax paid challan under the VSVS, 2024 was filed before us. It was submitted that since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 therefore, the appeal filed may kindly be ordered to be withdrawn on the request of the assessee.
3. Sh. Shrawan Kumar Meena, CIT DR (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. CIT DR’) had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.
Accordingly, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal of the assesee is dismissed as withdrawn.