610 orders · Page 13 of 13
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue could not demonstrate any exception to the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
Following a Madras High Court decision, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal followed the High Court's precedent and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee liberty to restore it if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's quantum appeals were resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, rendering the penalty appeals infructuous. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the issue was remanded back to the AO by a previous ITAT order, the penalty was not sustainable. As the addition was not in existence and the matter was restored to the AO, no penalty was leviable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received a settlement certificate under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on this settlement.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a rider. The assessee has the liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6% of the bogus purchases, finding it justifiable and not suffering from illegality or infirmity.