EVEREST FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS S. NARENDRAKUMAR AND CO.),MUMBAI vs. CIT-51, MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals based on a misunderstanding of the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement. The issues arising from search assessments need to be adjudicated on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) because it was presumed the assessee had settled disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. However, the assessee clarified that they only settled disputes from original assessments, not those arising from search operations.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing appeals on the presumption of Vivad Se Vishwas settlement for search-related assessments, and if the issues should be adjudicated on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI ‘E’ BENCH, MUMBAI.
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM)
Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :-
All the four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-51, Mumbai and they relate to the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals on the reasoning that the assessee has opted to settle the disputes under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Ld A.R submitted that the assessing officer has passed two assessment orders in respect of these years. He submitted that the first set of orders were passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein the AO had made
2 to 2482/Mum/2023 Everest Food Products Pvt. Ltd. certain additions. Subsequently, the revenue carried out search and seizure operations in the hands of the assessee u/s 132 of the Act on 26.11.2019. Consequent thereto the assessments of the years relating to AY 2014-15 to 2016-17 were completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. The assessment of the year relating to AY 2013-14 was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act.
The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had settled the dispute relating to the additions made in the original assessment proceedings completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee has not opted for VSVS scheme for the additions made in the impugned assessments, which have been completed consequent to search operations. However, the Ld CIT(A) has erroneously presumed that the assessee has opted to settle the disputes relating to search assessments. Accordingly, he prayed that all the issues may be restored to the file of Ld CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits.
The Ld D.R did not controvert the submissions made by Ld A.R.
Having regard to the submissions made by Ld A.R, we notice that the assessee has not opted to settle the disputes arising out of search assessments under VSVS scheme. Hence, the ld CIT(A) has fell into error in presuming that the disputes arising out of search assessments have been settled under VSVS scheme. The Ld A.R has clarified that the assessee has opted to settle the disputes arising in the original assessment proceedings only under VSVS scheme. Hence, all the issues urged by the assessee in these appeals need to be adjudicated on merits, first by Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in all the years under consideration and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them on merits. After providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Ld CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law.
Pronounced in the open court on 17/10/2023.
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026