ITAT Ranchi Judgments — January 2025
9 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, making it unnecessary to keep the appeal pending. The matter was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to seek restoration if the scheme is not availed.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, appeals by the Revenue have a monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/-. Since the tax effect in this case was below this limit, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme rendered further proceedings before the Tribunal redundant. The appeal was therefore treated as withdrawn.
The appeals were treated as withdrawn by the assessee. The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a provision for restoration if the assessee fails to achieve a logical end through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal observed that the NFAC order was ex parte due to non-compliance. While the assessee failed to provide evidence, it could not be definitively concluded that the non-compliance was deliberate or mala fide. The Tribunal decided to set aside the NFAC order and remand the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's intention to settle the matter through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. It was held that since the assessee has opted for settlement, no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to settle the matter through the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, and therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. The appeals were treated as withdrawn.
The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed on a summary basis without adequate inquiry, violating principles of natural justice. The appeals officer dismissed the appeal for non-admission based on Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, but this was also contested.
