HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD( AS LEGAL SUCCESSOR OF GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD),GURGAON vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not considering reply dated 06.01.2021 e-filed by the appellant wherein - (a) it was specifically mentioned that the appellant was not settling the aforesaid appeal under the VSV Act; and (b) submissions on merits were duly provided. That the CIT(A) erred on the facts and in law in dismissing the appeal without 1.4 providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

0 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that in the order dated 14.12.2012, the assessing officer assessed the total income of the appellant at Rs. 1,88,22,37,820 (returned income) even though income was determined at Rs. 1,87,92,52,931 in the appeal effect order itself.

1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessing officer failed to allow depreciation of Rs.29,84,892 under section 32(1) of the Act in respect of following expenses capitalized by the assessing officer in earlier years, even though the same were duly allowed in the original assessment order dated 28.09.2010 passed for the relevant year under section 143(3)/144C of the Act:

2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessing officer exceeded his juri iction by not following directions of the Tribunal and restricting the assessed income to the returned income as declared by the appellant, at his own will. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.

At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed the impugned order wrongly holding that the assessee has opted for settling its disputes under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that in fact the assessee had opted for settling its dispute in appeal filed by the department in ITA No. 30/2013 before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court pertaining to the A.Y. 2006-07. The Ld. Counsel accordingly submitted that in the present case, since the assessee has neither opted for settlement of dispute nor has made any such request before the Ld. CIT(A), the impugned order is contrary to the pleadings of the assessee, therefore liable to be set aside. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the same afresh on merit.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR did not oppose the prayer made by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee.

We have perused the material on record in the light of the submissions made by the Ld. counsel. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel, in this case the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal holding that the appellant has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, vide application dated 20.03.2020, which is factually not correct. Hence, in our considered view, this appeal needs fresh hearing by the Ld. CIT (A) on merits. We therefore, allow the present appeal for statistical purposes and set aside the impugned order and send the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the same on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee.

""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य आ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File