“vsv scheme”

Settlement & AmnestyDTVSV 2020DTVSV 2020524 judgments

Judgments citing vsv scheme

Hitesh S. Bhagat, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5711/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni

assessee has opted for the settlement of its tax dispute for the year under consideration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (“VSV Scheme”). In this regard, the learned D.R. placed on record Form no.5, issued by the Designated Authority under the VSV Scheme. From the perusal ... Form no.5, we find that the tax dispute regarding tax arrears amounting to Rs.31,37,215, is fully and finally settled under the VSV Scheme for the assessment year 2008–09. However, we notice that the dispute pertains to assessee’s appeal being ITA no.10/Mum./2020. During the hearing

Sri. Pavan Kandkur, Hubballi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malmotra, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 5(3)Section 8

appreciate that the Appellant assessee had challenged the Assessment order dt. 23/12/2019 in Appeal before the CIT(A) and had also gone for the VSV scheme 2020 to settle the issues with the Income Tax Department. 10. The Ld. CIT erred in relying on section 5(3) and section ... Assessee has stated that he has opted for the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and has filed Form-4 under the VsV Scheme. He has not stated that any Form-5 has been issued and if Form-5 has not been issued, the process under the VsV Scheme cannot

M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (Sucessor to Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation 3(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1813/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 4(2)

assessee in default and interest under section 201(1A) of the Act was levied, assessee sought resolution of the dispute under VSV scheme. However, in respect of transaction with non-resident vendor, no application was filed under VSV scheme. The learned AR further submitted that by referring to proceedings under ... VSV scheme in respect of transactions with resident vendor, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, which was, in fact, in respect of transaction with non-resident vendor. In this regard, the learned AR placed on record the relevant forms under VSV scheme in respect of transaction

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 413/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 192Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 92C

claim made on accrual basis for A.YS. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and subsequent withdrawn of the claim under VSV scheme by paying corresponding disputed liability for the AY 2012-13 has no bearing for the subject assessment year. Thus, we find no merit in the objection raised

Commscope India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Andrew Telecommunications India Private Limited), Goa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 678/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Commscope India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Andrew The Commissioner Telecommunications Of Income Tax India Pvt. Ltd.), (Appeals), Plot No. N2, Phase Iv, Nfac, Verna Industrial Vs. Delhi. Estate Verna, Salcete, Goa – 403 722. Pan: Aabca8820A Appellant Respondent : Ms. Vaidehi G., Ca & Assessee By Shri Dhiraj R, Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 06/09/2021 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Only Allegation Raised By The Ld.Ar Is That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal By Holding As Under:

For Respondent: Ms. Vaidehi G., CA &

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 201Section 4

section 2 of section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.” 3. However, the Ld.AR submitted that assessee filed VsV scheme for order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 01/12/2016 in case of CommScope India Pvt. Ltd. The appeal that arised out of the 143(3) order ... assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) was against an order passed u/s. 201 of the Act for which assessee had not opted for VsV scheme. The Ld.AR submitted that a mail to that effect was also sent to the NFAC on 11/07/2022, which was ignored and the appeal was dismissed

Vimala Devi A. Kanunga, Hubli vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 308/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Vimala Devi A. Kanunga, Pcit, Vs. M/S. Jainam Syndicate, Hubli. Near Shankar Math, Kanchagargalli, Hubli – 580 028. Pan : Amupk 3079 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 68

before CIT(A). Pending disposal of the said appeal, the assessee opted to settle the dispute under Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020 (VSV Scheme) and filed necessary forms and made payment of taxes as per the said Act. Therefore, settled issue cannot be reopened under section ... remained unexplained, but the required addition has not been made in the assessment order.” 7. On the question when the dispute is settled under VSV Scheme, the PCIT held that the same would be valid only to the extent of addition made by the AO and not the entire cash

Imperial Consultants and Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi

ITA 693/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 693/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Cit(A), National Imperial Consultants Faceless Appeal & Securities Ltd. बनाम/ 202, United Business Centre, Delhi Vs. Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-400 605 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaepj7836R (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ganesh Rajgopalan Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 03.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 31.08.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh RajgopalanFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay V

Section 143(3)Section 250

filed by the Appellant.” 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee-company had filed an application Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ("VsV Scheme") on behalf of Paprika Media Private Limited ("PMPL") (PAN AADCP1909P) as the said company has merged with the assessee. He further submitted that ... National Faceless Appeal Centre against a different appeal (Appeal No. CIT(A)12, Mumbai/11332/2016-17). The assessee has not made any application under the VSV Scheme with respect to the said Appeal. 4. Ld. DR also submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order in a different appeal, accordingly

Sanjay Subhshchand Gupta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2, Kalyan

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4573/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha, Sr. A.R

Section 254(1)

submitted that the assessee on 30/03/2021, filed a letter before the Tribunal seeking withdrawal of its appeal, as the assessee had opted for VSV Scheme (Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020). The learned A.R. further submitted that since there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the aforesaid letter ... learned Departmental Representative did not object to the fact that the tax dispute pertaining to the year under consideration has been settled under VSV Scheme. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Representative of both the sides, we find that the assessee had filed an application dated 30/03/2021

Mr Ajay Shyamsunder Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 17 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is treated as withdrawn and hence dismissed

ITA 6972/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Mr. Ajay Shyamsunder The Income Tax Officer, Agarwal Ward, 17(1)(4), Kautilya 10A/1 Prithvi Apartments 21, Bhavan Bkc, Alt, Mount Road Near Giriraj Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Cumbala Hill, Mumbai-400 026 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpa6690F

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

application of the assessee dated 21st March 4. 2022 stating that the dispute involved in the above appeal has been settled Under the VSV scheme and therefore the appeal is required to be withdrawn. Request of the assessee has been acceded to. 5. In the result appeal filed

Dy CIT, Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. Priyanka Chopra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 479/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 16(1) V. Priyanka Chopra Room No. 439, 4Th Floor B-807, Raj Classic Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Yari Road, Versova Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Acxpc1741R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Joijode Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh JoijodeFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani

Section 132Section 132ASection 2Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S

M/S. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 14(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2406/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147

under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Pursuant to receipt of Form No.3 from the competent authority, the assessee had duly paid the taxes thereon under VSV Scheme and Form No.5 has also been received from PCIT, Mumbai-6 by the assessee settling the tax arrears for A.Y.2014-15 in 6 M/s. Reliance

Naimesh Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4787/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

have heard the ld.DR and perused the record. Since, assesse has opted for withdrawal of appeal as assessee is settling the dispute under VsV scheme, we 2 dismiss this appeal as withdrawn as assessees has opted for settling the dispute under VsV Scheme 4. In the result, appeal

DCIT, CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Ruia (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6309/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shailja Rai

Section 132

crore for AY 2008-09. It may be further noted that as per information obtained from the AO, BRR(HUF) has opted for VsV scheme for AY 2008-09. Further, the assessee’s contention that neither the payer nor the recipient has ever admitted that the cash of such magnitude ... cash. 3. Bharat Ruia had declared These facts are not relevant. Since undisclosed income and allegation is that the assessee has opted for VSV scheme paid cash, there ought to be source of income in the hands of the assessee. 4. Q.15 (PB pg 49) shows The said transaction pertain

Mangal Patekar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-26(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2413/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangal Santosh Patekar, Acit-26(2), 1305, Bld. No. 14, Bhakti Park, Vs. Bkc, Bandra (East), Near I Max Theatre, Walada (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400037. Pan No. Ahqpp 1377 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. T. Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 4

outset, the Ld. AR submitted that assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and furnished copy of Form-1 & Form-2 of VSV Scheme. The Ld. counsel at the outset has submitted that he does not want to pursue the said appeal and requested that his application ... scheme and after considering the material on record, the aforesaid request for the withdrawal of appeal of the assessee to avail the VSV Scheme, 2020 in accordance with law is allowed. However, in case any issue is remained un-resolved under the said Scheme, then the assessee will

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S. Dnata International Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 143/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kulbharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.143/Del/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, SrFor Respondent: 31.01.2022

framed thereunder. The Ld. Counsel accordingly submitted that he does not seek to defend the said appeal owing to exercise of option for availing VSV scheme and consequently urged that assessee request for closure of Revenue’s appeal may please be granted. 3. In the light of written requests made ... captioned Assessee, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in limine. However, in the event, the Assessee fails to avail the benefit of VSV Scheme for any bonafide reasons, then the Revenue will be at liberty to seek restoration of original appeal for hearing before ITAT in accordance with

Sri. Nagaraj Venkataramanappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 458/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 44A

parties on this preliminary issue. In the petition it is stated that the assessee was exploring the possibility of settling the disputes under VSV Scheme and taking professional advices. However, by that time lock down also announced. All these reasons have caused the delay of 124 days in filing

Investors Clinic Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4454/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)

submitted that assessee does not seek to pursue the said appeal owing to exercise of option for 2 I.T.A. No. 4454/DEL/2018 availing VSV Scheme and consequently requested that assessee’s application for withdrawal of appeal may please be granted. 3. None appeared on behalf of the Revenue ... behalf of the captioned party, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in the event, the assessee fails to avail the benefit of VSV Scheme for any bonafide reasons, then the assessee concerned will be at liberty to seek restoration of original appeal for hearing before ITAT in accordance with

Indian Oil Foundation, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1935/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)

submitted that assessee does not seek to pursue the said appeal owing to exercise of option for 2 I.T.A. No. 1935/DEL/2018 availing VSV Scheme and consequently requested that assessee’s application for withdrawal of appeal may please be granted. 3. The ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue stated that ... behalf of the captioned party, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in the event, the assessee fails to avail the benefit of VSV Scheme for any bonafide reasons, then the assessee concerned will be at liberty to seek restoration of original appeal for hearing before ITAT in accordance with

Kiran Devi Jhawar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Faridabad

In the result, the captioned appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1192/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1192/Del/2018 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) वष" Kiran Devi Jhawar बनाम/ Ito बनाम बनाम बनाम 191, Mig Housing Board Ward-1 Vs. Colony, Sector-10, Faridabad Faridabad -121006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj9415P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By Shri A. K. Singhal, Ca : ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of 23/12/2021 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 23 /12/2021 Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R

filed by assessee, it is submitted that assessee does not seek to pursue the said appeal owing to exercise of option for availing VSV Scheme and consequently requested that assessee’s application for withdrawal of appeal may please be granted. 3. The ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue stated that ... behalf of the captioned Assessee, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in the event, the assessee fails to avail the benefit of VSV Scheme for any bonafide reasons, then the assessee concerned will be at liberty to seek restoration of original appeal for hearing before ITAT in accordance with

Indu Rani Punj, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-53(1), New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 7916/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7916/Del/2018 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) वष" Indu Rani Punj बनाम/ Acit बनाम बनाम बनाम 10, Prithvi Raj Road, Circle- 53 (1) Vs. New Delhi-110011 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp5711C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Ca : ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri T. Kipgen, Cit Dr Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of 21/12/2021 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 22 /12/2021 Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R

filed by assessee, it is submitted that assessee does not seek to pursue the said appeal owing to exercise of option for availing VSV Scheme and consequently requested that assessee’s application for withdrawal of appeal may please be granted. 3. The ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue stated that ... behalf of the captioned party, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in the event, the assessee fails to avail the benefit of VSV Scheme for any bonafide reasons, then the assessee concerned will be at liberty to seek restoration of original appeal for hearing before ITAT in accordance with