ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — December 2020

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GUNTUR vs BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

ITA 200/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that additions made in completed assessments without any incriminating material seized during a search are not permissible. For the AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits, and any doubt about the source of source should be addressed with the creditor, not the assessee.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GUNTUR vs BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

ITA 198/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that additions made in completed assessments without any incriminating material seized during a search are not permissible. For the AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits, and any doubt about the source of source should be addressed with the creditor, not the assessee.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

ITA 201/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that additions made in completed assessments without any incriminating material seized during a search are not permissible. For the AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits, and any doubt about the source of source should be addressed with the creditor, not the assessee.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs KHAN MOHAMMED DIAMONDS & JEWELRY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

ITA 183/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in estimating the income of the assessee. The primary reasoning was that the AO failed to reject the assessee's books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a mandatory prerequisite for estimating profit. The Tribunal noted that while the AO observed a decrease in net profit, no defects were pointed out in the books of account, and no evidence of income suppression or inflation of expenses was found during the search operation. The Tribunal emphasized that estimation of profit cannot be done by comparing profits of earlier years with the current year without rejecting the books of account. The admission given by the assessee via affidavit was considered invalid as it was given under misapprehension and pressure, and importantly, the law requires rejection of books of account irrespective of such admission. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition made by the AO. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUTNUR vs ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL, GUTNUR

ITA 207/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that in unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search, even if there is a voluntary admission. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, 3RD FLOOR, RAJKAMAL COMPLEX, LAKSHMIPURAM, GUNTUR vs DECCAN JEWELERS PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

ITA 181/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in estimating the income of the assessee at 2.15% of the total turnover for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal noted that for estimating profit, it is mandatory to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by pointing out specific defects. In this case, the AO did not reject the books of account, nor did the search operation yield any evidence of income suppression or inflated expenditure. The assessee had maintained regular, audited books of account. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in ACIT Vs. Rushabh Vatika, Pr.CIT Vs. Marg Ltd., and Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, which state that estimation of profit cannot be done without rejecting the books of account and without material evidence. The admission given by the assessee in an affidavit was not considered a sufficient basis for estimation without proper justification and verification. Therefore, the estimation of income made by the AO was held to be bad in law. The Tribunal upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.

THOTA VIJAYA LAKSHMI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 144/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Department had issued the relevant form. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arose.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI vs MK AQUA HATCHERY, THONDANGI(M)

ITA 436/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that capital contributions made by partners to a firm cannot be assessed in the hands of the firm under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Such amounts should be examined in the hands of the individual partners.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

ITA 197/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that additions made in completed assessments without any incriminating material seized during a search are not permissible. For the AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits, and any doubt about the source of source should be addressed with the creditor, not the assessee.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs KHAN MOHAMMED DIAMONDS & JEWELRY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

ITA 184/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in estimating the income of the assessee. The primary reasoning was that the AO failed to reject the assessee's books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a mandatory prerequisite for estimating profit. The Tribunal noted that while the AO observed a decrease in net profit, no defects were pointed out in the books of account, and no evidence of income suppression or inflation of expenses was found during the search operation. The Tribunal emphasized that estimation of profit cannot be done by comparing profits of earlier years with the current year without rejecting the books of account. The admission given by the assessee via affidavit was considered invalid as it was given under misapprehension and pressure, and importantly, the law requires rejection of books of account irrespective of such admission. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition made by the AO. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs DECCAN JEWELERS PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

ITA 182/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in estimating the income of the assessee at 2.15% of the total turnover for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal noted that for estimating profit, it is mandatory to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by pointing out specific defects. In this case, the AO did not reject the books of account, nor did the search operation yield any evidence of income suppression or inflated expenditure. The assessee had maintained regular, audited books of account. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in ACIT Vs. Rushabh Vatika, Pr.CIT Vs. Marg Ltd., and Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, which state that estimation of profit cannot be done without rejecting the books of account and without material evidence. The admission given by the assessee in an affidavit was not considered a sufficient basis for estimation without proper justification and verification. Therefore, the estimation of income made by the AO was held to be bad in law. The Tribunal upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.

PILLI SANTHOSH KRISHNA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 94/VIZ/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 54 days in filing the appeals. The appeals were admitted to allow the assessees to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and settle the protracted litigation.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL, GUTNUR

ITA 202/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that in unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search, even if there is a voluntary admission. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUTNUR vs ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL, GUTNUR

ITA 203/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that in unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search, even if there is a voluntary admission. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUTNUR vs ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL, GUTNUR

ITA 204/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that in unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search, even if there is a voluntary admission. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL, GUTNUR

ITA 205/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that in unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search, even if there is a voluntary admission. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUTNUR vs ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL, GUTNUR

ITA 206/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that in unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search, even if there is a voluntary admission. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

TUMMIDI BROTHERS JEWELLERY,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

ITA 179/VIZ/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of disallowance for making charges paid to goldsmiths, finding that TDS provisions were not attracted. However, it upheld the disallowance for a portion of making charges due to lack of evidence and the addition for the difference in purchases, as the assessee failed to provide supporting documents.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GUNTUR vs BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

ITA 199/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that additions made in completed assessments without any incriminating material seized during a search are not permissible. For the AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits, and any doubt about the source of source should be addressed with the creditor, not the assessee.

THOTA VIJAYA LAKSHMI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 143/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Department had issued the relevant form. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arose.

RAVINDRA KUMAR JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 237/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to seek recall if unforeseen circumstances arise.

SRI NARENDRA LEKHRAJ JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 253/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-2015Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, and the Department had issued Form No. 3.

REKHA SOLANKI,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 255/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-2015Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was with liberty to seek recall of the order in case unforeseen circumstances arise in the future.

SRI NARENDRA LEKHRAJ JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 256/VIZ/2018[2013-20147]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

SRI MAMATHA DEVI,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 260/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-2015Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was based on the assessees having availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing relevant forms.

MANJU DEVI,GUNTUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

ITA 621/VIZ/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessees to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

TRISHALA DEVI,GUNTUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

ITA 622/VIZ/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order under unforeseen circumstances.

M.YETHIRAJA SUBRAHMANYAM,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 182/VIZ/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2010-11Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate had been issued, and the assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision to recall the order if the certificate is later withdrawn.

MAMATA KUMARI,GUNTUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

ITA 624/VIZ/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees having availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing the necessary forms.

M.YETHIRAJA SUBRAHMANYAM,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 184/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2012-13Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that once Form No.3 is issued under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the appeals are deemed withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

M SRILAKSHMI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 204/VIZ/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2010-11Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that upon issuance of Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

M.APPALA RAJU SRIRANGA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 201/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that once the certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act is issued, the appeals are deemed withdrawn. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a rider to recall the order if the certificate is later withdrawn.

POTHUMARTHI PADMAVATHI,GUDIVADA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 525/VIZ/2019[2007-08]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was permitted because the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued Form No. 3.

BORUSU SATYANARAYANA,TANUKU MANDAL vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY RANGE, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 632/VIZ/2019[2006-2007]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2006-2007Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

M/S. NARAYANA REDDY ENTERPRISES,KAKINADA vs THE ITO, WARD-1, KAKINADA

ITA 681/VIZ/2019[2011-2012]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2011-2012Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the department issuing Form No. 3.

NIKHIL KUMAR JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 219/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and a certificate was issued. The assessees sought to withdraw the appeals.

KANCHAN GHISALAL JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 223/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and a certificate was issued. The assessees sought to withdraw the appeals.

SANTHOSH JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 232/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

SMT. INDU SANGHVI,VLJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 221/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that upon issuance of Form No. 3, the appeals are deemed withdrawn. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a liberty to recall the order if the certificate is withdrawn later.

M.YETHIRAJA SUBRAHMANYAM,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 183/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2011-12Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that once Form No.3 is issued under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the appeals are deemed withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

SRI MUKESH JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 263/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-2015Dismissed

The tribunal allowed the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, noting that the assessees had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

SRI SUMERMAL JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 258/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-2015Dismissed

The tribunal allowed the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, noting that the assessees had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

NITINKUMAR RATANPURA HUF,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 261/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-2015Dismissed

The tribunal allowed the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, noting that the assessees had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

M.APPALA RAJU SRIRANGA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 200/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that once the certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act is issued, the appeals are deemed withdrawn. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a rider to recall the order if the certificate is later withdrawn.

AASHIQ JAIN,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), GUNTUR

ITA 198/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-2015Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that a certificate in Form No.3 was issued, and the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision to recall the order if the certificate was later withdrawn.

SRI SEVANTHI DEVI,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 257/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-2015Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was based on the assessees having availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing relevant forms.

NILESH JAIN,GUNTUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

ITA 623/VIZ/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees having availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing the necessary forms.

DIMPLE JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 230/VIZ/2018[2013-+14]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The withdrawal was permitted with liberty to seek recall of the order in case of unforeseen circumstances.

M.APPALA RAJU SRIRANGA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 199/VIZ/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that once the certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act is issued, the appeals are deemed withdrawn. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a rider to recall the order if the certificate is later withdrawn.

SAKUNTALA JAIN,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), GUNTUR

ITA 201/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2020AY 2014-2015Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that a certificate in Form No.3 was issued, and the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision to recall the order if the certificate was later withdrawn.