DJ INFRABUILD PVT. LTD,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 206/DDN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 December 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 Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order. The assessee later opted to settle the dispute under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal can be withdrawn and dismissed upon settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [DELHI BENCH : “DEHRADUN SMC” NEW DELHI ]

Before: DR. B. R. R. KUMAR & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

Hearing: 16.12.2022Pronounced: 29.12.2022

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals) dated 10/10/2019 for assessment year 2015-16.

` DJ Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT

2.

The assessee has filed a letter stating that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute involved in the impugned appeal under “The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020” and filed Form No. 5 issued under the Scheme. Therefore, submitted that the appeal may be allowed to be withdrawn.

3.

The Ld. DR also agreed with the above contentions.

4.

On careful consideration of the fact it is found that Form No. 5 has been issued to the assessee by the Department on 28th November, 2022 under ‘The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020’. Therefore, the appeal is allowed be withdrawn and hence dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal is filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on : 29.12.2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →