NARENDER KUMAR ARORA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 1, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4664/DEL/2019Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 January 2023AY 2014-154 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, making the appeal infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee later opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) and received Form-5, leading to a request to drop the appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal has become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and whether the invocation of Section 263 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Mr. Supreet Arora, Authorized

ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, [“Ld. Pr.CIT(A)”, for short], dated 22/03/2019 for Assessment Year 2014-15. Grounds taken in this appeal are as under:

“1. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for AY 2014-15 is not only prejudicial to the Page 1 of 4 Narender Kumar Arora vs. PCIT interest of Revenue but is also erroneous in so far as the Assessing Officer has failed to make adequate inquiry.

2.

The learned Pr. CIT while holding that assessment order dated 25/07/2016 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue has failed to appreciate that while framing the assessment order, the AO had made extensive enquiry regarding Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of Kappac Pharma Ltd., and sought explanation from the assessee from the to time for which the replied were submitted along with all the evidences. After considering these replies, the AO adopted one permissible view by accepting the claim of the assessee and thus invocation of power u/s 263 is on the basis of change of opinion, which is not permissible in law.

3.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

(B) It has been intimated from the assessee’s side that the assessee opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (“VSVS”, for short) and that the Designated Authority had already issued Form-5 under VSVS. A copy of Form-5 issued by the Designated Authority was also placed on record. A letter has been filed from the assessee’s side, seeking to drop the appellate proceedings in ITAT. The learned Sr. DR for Revenue submitted before us, at the time of hearing, that the appeal has become infructuous in view of the assessee opting for VSVS; and that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. After due consideration and in view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that this appeal has become infructuous on account of aforesaid Narender Kumar Arora vs. PCIT VSVS, and that this appeal may be treated as withdrawn on account of the aforesaid VSVS. Accordingly, this appeal having become infructuous, is treated as withdrawn and is hereby dismissed.

(B.1) Before we part, we hereby clarify, by way of abundant caution, that if for some reason the disputes under this appeal before us are not settled under the aforesaid VSVS, then the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of this appeal in accordance with law.

(C) In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

This order was already pronounced orally on 19th January, 2023 in Open Court, in the presence of representatives of both sides, after conclusion of the hearing. Now this order in writing is signed today on 19/01/2023.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →