Sh. Satyendra Kumar Tyagi, Haridwar V. DCIT, Haridwar

ITA 2236/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7240 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K CHATTERJEE SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: ARPIT VERMA VERMACA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH: DEHRADUN (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE, SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2236/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) SH. SATYENDRA KUMAR TYAGI, TYAGI NIWAS, ARYA NAGAR, JWALAPUR, HARIDWAR. PAN AEDPT 2561A VS. DY. CIT, CIRCLE HARIDWAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. ARPIT VERMA (VERMA),CA RESPONDENT BY SH. S.K. CHATTERJEE, SR-DR DATE OF HEARING 18.08.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.08.2020 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(AP PEALS), DEHRADUN {CIT(A)} AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13. 2. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL IS A PART OF APPEALS IN WHICH INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED TO SE TTLE THE DISPUTE 2 ITA NO.2236/DEL/2016 SATYENDRA KUMAR TYAGI VS . DCIT RELATING TO THE TAX ARREARS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDER THE DIRECT TAX VIVAD SE VISHWAS ACT, 2020. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE NECESSARY DECLARATION IN A CCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4 OF THE DIRECT TAX VIVAD SE VISHWAS ACT, 20 20 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SITUATION, THE CAPTIONED APPEAL IS CONSIGNED TO THE RECORDS AND TREATED AS DISMISSED. 4. HOWEVER, THE AFORESAID IS SUBJECT TO A CAVE AT 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. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, THE APPEAL IS CONSIG NED TO THE RECORDS AND, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, IS TREATED AS DISMIS SED. ABOVE DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIRTU AL HEARING ON 18 TH AUGUST, 2020. SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:18/08/2020 PK/PS 3 ITA NO.2236/DEL/2016 SATYENDRA KUMAR TYAGI VS . DCIT COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DEHRADUN