SPRNG TRANSFORM SUN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2847/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 January 2023AY 2017-20186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)-NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to be heard and on a mistaken assumption that the VSVS applied to the current appeal. The matter was therefore restored for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)-NFAC was dismissed because it was believed the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS). However, the VSVS was actually filed for a different appeal related to a regular assessment order, not the reassessment order that led to the current appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)-NFAC erred by dismissing the appeal without granting an opportunity to be heard and by incorrectly applying the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to the reassessment appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 153C,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI BASKARAN BR, AM

For Appellant: Shri. Soumender Kumar
For Respondent: Shri. Soumender Kumar

O R D E R

Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 06.09.2022, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 147 for the AY 2019-20.

1.

The learned CIT(A)-NFAC did not provide an opportunity of being heard as per the provisions under Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 to the Appellant before passing the order dated 6 September 2022.

2. The learned CIT(A)-NFAC in the order dated 6 September 2022 has inadvertently linked another appeal filed by the Appellant with appeal no. CIT(A)- 8/Mumbai/10239/2019-20 for which the Appellant has exercised the option under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) on 7 January 2021 and erred in holding that the Appellant had opted for VSVS for the appeal filed before the CIT(A)-NFAC on 24 April 2022 against the reopening assessment order dated 25 March 2022. 3. The learned CIT(A)-NFAC failed to appreciate that VSVS was filed on 7 January 2021 for regular assessment order dated 7 December 2019 whereas the appeal before CIT(A)-NFAC was filed on 24 April 2022 against the reassessment assessment order dated 25 March 2022. While deciding the appeal the learned CIT(A)-NFAC inadvertently missed the point that VSVS was not 3 SPRNG TRANSFORM SUN ENERGY P.LTD applicable as on the date when the order dated 6 September 2022 was passed. 4. The appellant request your honour to restore the order passed by the learned CIT(A)- NFAC dated 6 September 2022 to decide the matter afresh. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not deciding the following grounds of appeal filed by the appellant on 24. April 2022. i. The Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and determining the income of the appellant at Rs.11,35.58.190/- ii. The Ld. A.O., given the facts and circumstances of the matter, erred in initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act, in view of provisions of section 153C of the Act. iii. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and in facts in reopening the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act which is invalid and bad-in-law. iv. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and in facts in not disposing the objections to the reopening filed by the appellant and hence the jurisdiction assumed by the Ld. A.O. is void ab initio.

4 SPRNG TRANSFORM SUN ENERGY P.LTD v. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and in facts in passing the assessment order without complying with the principles of natural justice. vi. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and in facts in making addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs. 11.30,00,000/- on account of unexplained money.

3. From the perusal of the appellate order it is seen that appeal has been dismissed on the following reasons.

2.

It is noted that the appellant opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme vide application dated 07.01.2021. Pursuant thereto, the PCIT, 3, Mumbai has certified the full and final payment of Rs. 112794/- as taxes in terms of Form No.5 dated 11.04.2022. In view of the above, the appeal is treated as in fructuous as sub section 2 of section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act,2020.

3.

Accordingly, the appeal is treated as dismissed for statistical purposes.

4.

Before us, the Ld. Counsel submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts in holding that Assessee has opted VSVS on 7th Jan 5 SPRNG TRANSFORM SUN ENERGY P.LTD 2021. The VSVS was filed against Appeal for regular assessment order 7th December 2019 where as the appeal which was filed before NFAC(Delhi) was filed on 24.04.2022 against re-assessment order passed u/s 147 dated 25th March 2022. Thus, Ld. CIT (A) without giving any opportunity has dismissed the appeal on a wrong assumption of facts. The Ld. DR also admitted the factual position has stated by the Assessee.

5.

In view of the aforesaid fact that, firstly, the appellate order has been passed without giving opportunity to the Assessee and more over, the Ld. CIT (A) has erroneously held that Assessee has opted at VSVS in the present appeal whereas, it is factually incorrect, because, Assessee adopted for VSVS against the first appeal filed against original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 07.12.2019. The present appeal was filed against re assessment dated 25th 2022 passed u/s 147. Therefore, appeal should have been decided on merits.

6.

Accordingly, the appeal of the Assessee is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh and in accordance

7.

In the Result of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →