MITRABINDA KUMARI PANWAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), NOIDA

Captioned appeals by the assessee arise out of two separate orders passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, pertaining to assessment years 2010-11.

arises out of quantum proceeding, whereas, is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. These matters were posted today for considering assessee’s application seeking fixation of a date for early hearing. However, considering the nature of dispute, with the consent of both the parties, appeals are taken up for hearing.

We have heard Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, learned Departmental Representative.

Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee has submitted that the first appellate authority has completely misconceived the facts while dismissing the appeals of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has opted for settling the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Whereas, he submitted, the assessee has not made any declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for settling the dispute arising in these two appeals.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions of the assessee, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders of first appellate authority and restore the matter back to him for de novo adjudication on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of 2 | P a g e being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.