MADRAS ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also set aside the order of the first appellate authority and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee sought condonation of a significant delay in filing the appeal, citing non-receipt of the impugned order. The assessee also argued that the first appellate authority erroneously dismissed the appeal based on opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for a different assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal was rightly dismissed by the first appellate authority due to a misunderstanding of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme applicability. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 28-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
At the time of hearing of captioned appeal, Ld. AR sought condonation of delay of 470 days. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not served with impugned order either electronically or through registered post. An affidavit to that effect has been filed by Managing Director of assessee entity. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay.
After going through the contents of the affidavit and keeping in mind principle of natural justice, the bench deems it fit to condone the delay and accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the appeal has erroneously been dismissed by first appellate authority on the ground that the assessee opted for settlement under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Ld. AR submitted that an assessment was framed u/s 143(3) which was settled under the scheme. However the case was reopened and more additions were made by Ld. AO in an assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 31.12.2019 which was challenged before first appellate authority. It was also submitted that the assessee did not opt for the scheme for this assessment. The Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert the same. 4. Concurring with the submissions of Ld. AR, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de- novo adjudication on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case. 5. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 28th November, 2023.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026