PUJITA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal as withdrawn based only on filing Form 2, without considering the completion of the Vivad Se Vishwas process (which requires tax payment and issuance of Form 5), was not in accordance with the law. Since no tax was paid, the scheme application was deemed rejected.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as withdrawn solely because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed Form No. 2. However, the assessee had not made any tax payment under the scheme.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal can be dismissed as withdrawn solely on the ground of opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme without completion of the scheme's procedures. Whether the issues on merits should be restored to the CIT(A) when the Vivad Se Vishwas application is automatically rejected due to non-payment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 05/01/2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
At the outset, the ld. Representative on behalf of the assessee made reference to the paper book and the written submission. Perusal of the same indicates that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal filed for Assessment Year 2012-13 against the order of the ld. Assessing Officer dt. 12/12/2019 framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act only on the ground that the assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and filed Form No. 1 & 2 on 23/03/2020. In the decisions of the ld.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026