SEAVIEW DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 77(1), NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed. However, liberty was granted to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee has opted to settle the tax arrears under The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal can be treated as dismissed given the assessee's opting for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Addl./ Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Bengaluru [CIT(A) in short], dated 03.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment year under consideration under The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. It has been stated that necessary declaration in accordance with Section 91 of The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 has been filed by the assessee.
Seaview Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 3. Considering the aforesaid situation, the captioned appeal is consigned to the records and treated as dismissed.
However, the aforesaid is subject to a caveat that in case the dispute relating to tax arrears for the captioned assessment year is not ultimately resolved in terms of the aforestated Act, the appellant (i.e., the assessee) shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal and the Tribunal shall consider such application appropriately as per law. The respondent (i.e. the Revenue) has no objection with regard to the aforesaid caveat.
In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is consigned to the records and, for statistical purposes, is treated as dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.09.2025.
More judgments on Section 91
- Avinash Developers Private Limited, Raipur vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, RaipurITA 598/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Archana Gupta, New Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3123/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Shishir Dhatwalia, Hamirpur vs Circle 1(1) Jalpaiguri, JalpaiguriITA 2583/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Chintaginjala Mallikarjuna Sivaprasad… vs ITO, Ward-1, AnantapurITA 839/HYD/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Bank of India, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiITA 2810/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026