What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions in the hands of the companies were settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Act, the Revenue's appeal against the assessee, where only a protective addition was made, had become infructuous.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the assessee, Pawan Arya, concerning a protective addition made in his hands. Substantive additions were made to companies where the assessee was a director.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal becomes infructuous when the substantive additions are settled under a settlement scheme, rendering the protective addition in the individual's case moot.

Pawan Arya vs ACIT | ITAT Delhi 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Saktijit DeyDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Hearing: 27.06.2022Pronounced: 04.07.2022

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 7759/Del/2019

ITA No. 7756/Del/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue as well as by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 29.07.2019.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted a letter which is as under: & 7759/Del/2019 2 Pawan Arya “This relates to captioned revenue appeal before your honors listed on 27 June 2022 in F bench for AY 2017-2018. In aforesaid connection, it is humbly submitted that this is revenue appeal where initially protective addition was made in hands of present assessee (individual) and substantive addition was proportionately made in hands of companies (where assessee was director) M/s Galaxy Instruments Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Galaxy indicators (India) Pvt. Ltd. where substantive addition were confirmed in first appeal and when those company case appeals were pending before this Hon’ble ITAT (ITA 6394/DEL/2019 & 7455/DEL/2019) same stands hitherto settled under direct tax VSV (form 5 reed enclosed herewith : Ack number of Form 5: 82635576016220 & 8725140602312201.

In light of these facts, present revenue appeal in assessee (individual/director) case where protective addition was made in assessee’s asst, and where substantive addition confirmed at first appeal, is already settled in VSV in hands of aforesaid companies, so present appeal has become infructuous.”

Cash seized of Rs.1,30,98,000/- was substantively assessed in the hands of M/s Galaxy Indicators (India) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Galaxy Instruments Pvt. Ltd. The addition has been made on protective basis in the hands of Pawan Arya, the Director.

The assessee has opted for Vivad-se-Viswas Act, 2020 and paid taxes of Rs.92,391/- against the tax arrears of Rs.3,69,564/- in the case of M/s Galaxy Instruments Pvt. Ltd. and paid an amount of Rs.3,86,250/- against the tax arrears of Rs.1,16,84,062/- in case of M/s Galaxy Indicators (India) Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 2007-08. The Form 5 issued by the ld. PCIT, Central-3, Delhi have been submitted. In view of the & 7759/Del/2019 3 Pawan Arya declaration, the appeal of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee are being dismissed as infructuous.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 04/07/2022.

PAWAN ARYA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments