NITIN ASHOK ARORA,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (1), AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1346/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2021AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2010-11. The assessee later sought to withdraw the appeal as the issue was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee can withdraw an appeal if the issue is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Aurangabad. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : None (withdrawal application) Revenue by : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09-04-2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 18-05-2021 आदेश / ORDER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, dated 30.06.2019 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

When the matter was called on today, the appellant filed a letter seeking permission to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the issue involved in the present appeal stands settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appellant also filed copy of Form No.3 issued by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik-1.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. Department Representative had expressed no objection to permit the withdrawal of appeal.

4.

In the circumstances, we hereby grant permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th May, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →