Mukund Bath Plaza, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2000/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8642 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH DUBEY
• Assessee Lawyers: YASHU GOEL
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBE I.T.A NO.2000/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) MUKUND BATH PLAZA, F-168, JAGTPURI, MAIN ROAD, SHAHDARA, DELHI-110 051. PAN-AAGFM 3089D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-59(5), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. YASHU GOEL, CA. RESPONDENT BY SH. PRAKASH DUBEY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 13.01.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13.01 2021 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST OR DER DATED 02.02.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, NEW DELHI {CIT(A)} FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2.0 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUB MITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE RELATING T O THE TAX ARREARS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDER T HE DIRECT TAX 2 ITA NO.2000/DEL/2016 MUKUND BATH PLAZA V S. ITO VIVAD SE VISHWAS ACT, 2020. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE NECESSARY DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4 OF THE DIRE CT TAX VIVAD SE VISHWAS ACT, 2020 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.0 CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SITUATION, THE CAPTIONED APPEAL IS CONSIGNED TO THE RECORDS AND TREATED AS DISMISSED. 4.0 HOWEVER, THE AFORESAID IS SUBJECT TO A CAV EAT THAT IN CASE THE DISPUTE RELATING TO TAX ARREARS FOR THE CAPTIONED A SSESSMENT YEAR IS NOT ULTIMATELY RESOLVED IN TERMS OF THE AFORESTATED ACT, THE APPELLANT (I.E., THE ASSESSEE) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROAC H THE TRIBUNAL FOR REINSTITUTION OF THE APPEAL AND THE TRIBUNAL SHALL CONSIDER SUCH APPLICATION APPROPRIATELY AS PER LAW. THE RESPONDENT (I.E., THE REVENUE) HAS NO OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THE AFORESA ID CAVEAT. 5.0 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, THE APPEAL IS CONSI GNED TO THE RECORDS AND, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, IS TREATED AS DISMIS SED. ABOVE DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIRTU AL HEARING ON 13 TH JANUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (G.S.PANNU) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13/01/2021 PK/PS 3 ITA NO.2000/DEL/2016 MUKUND BATH PLAZA V S. ITO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI