Tribunal Dismisses Appeals Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020, Upholds Deletion of Depreciation

The appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 were dismissed by the Tribunal, with the condition that the assessee could approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of depreciation on rental assets by the Ld. CIT(A), citing previous decisions and lack of distinguishing features presented by the revenue.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeals under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020.
2. Deletion of depreciation on rental assets.

Issue 1: Dismissal of appeals under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020:
The assessee filed an application seeking withdrawal of two appeals as they opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 and obtained Form No. 3 under section 5(1) of the scheme. The appeals were consigned to record and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstatement. The Revenue did not object to this caveat, and both appeals were dismissed for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: Deletion of depreciation on rental assets:
The dispute revolved around the deletion of depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,96,50,443 on rented assets by the Ld. CIT(A). The AO disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee, arguing that the assets were hired out and not used for self-use. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, citing previous Tribunal decisions in the appellant's case. The Tribunal noted that the AO followed the predecessor's order in disallowing the depreciation, but the Ld. CIT(A) had already deleted the disallowance, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the revenue's appeal, as no distinguishing features were presented to take a contrary view.

In conclusion, the appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 were dismissed, and the deletion of depreciation on rental assets was upheld by the Tribunal based on previous decisions and lack of distinguishing features presented by the revenue.

---