M/S. SHREE LEASING & FINANCE LTD.,CUTTAK vs. CIT, BHUBANESWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals. Subsequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed two appeals before the ITAT, one of which was significantly delayed. The assessee sought to withdraw both appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, having complied with its requirements.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the appeals can be dismissed as withdrawn under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
O R D E R Per Bench : These two appeals have been filed by the assessee arising out of the order passed by the CIT, Bhubaneswar, dated 15.03.2011 u/s.263 of the Act and the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 30.10.2019 in I.T.Appeal No.0404/15-16, for the assessment year 2006- 2007.
On perusal of the appeal record, we found that is barred by 3021 days. In this regard, ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an &52/CTK/2020 affidavit stating therein the reasons behind the delay in filing the present appeal. On the other hand, ld. DR opposed to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the application of the assessee stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period causing delay of 3021 days. We, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC), condone the delay and appeal is heard finally.
At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has duly filed the declarations in Form No.1 and Form No.2 and the Designated Authority has issued the certificate in Form No.3 as per Section 5(1) of the Scheme accepting the assessee’s declaration under the same Scheme. Ld. DR has no objection to the submission made by the ld. AR of the assessee in this regard.
On perusal of the documents placed on record of the Tribunal, especially the fact that the assessee has duly complied with the necessary requirement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, the permission as sought by the assessee, in both the appeals, is granted and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed treating the same as withdrawn. We also make it clear that in a situation, if the grievance of the assessee for the year under consideration could not be resolved under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, then the assessee would be entitled to seek recall of this dismissal order by filing a miscellaneous application. 6. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 02/02/ 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ऩी.एम. जगताऩ) (सी.एम. गगग) (P.M.JAGTAP) (C.M.GARG) उऩाध्यक्ष न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 02/02/2022 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant- M/s Shree Leasing & Finance Ltd. Meria Bazar, Old Usha Co. Godown Campus, Baxi Bazar, Cuttack-753001 प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 2. CIT, Bhubaneswar /ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक / DR, 5. ITAT, Cuttack गार्ग पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. सत्यावऩत प्रयत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,
(Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026