NEW HEIGHT BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,OSD, CIRCLE-18(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 207/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2022AY 2010-115 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the Designated Authority issued Form-5. The Revenue submitted that the appeal had become infructuous.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal has become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and whether reassessment proceedings were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI

ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, New Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 30.10.2019 for Assessment Year 2010-11.

Grounds taken in this appeal of Assessee are as under “1. That the notice issued u/s 147/148 was issued /served after the period of limitation & the proceedings are vitiated for this reason.

M/s New Height Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

2.

That the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) was passed after the period of limitation & the order is non-est in law for this reason.

3.

That the CIT(A) erred in not quashing the assessment. The proceedings u/s 147/148 were bad in law as:

(a) That there was no independent application of mind by the AO. (b) That the AO simply acted upon borrowed material & moreover such material was not supplied to the assessee. (c) That the AO did not have "reason to believe" to reopen the case. (d) That "reason to believe" of escapement of income were not applied to the assessee. (e) That the AO simply wanted to make more investigation. (f) That the AO acted mechanically & did not give a full opportunity to the assessee. (g) That there was "no nexus" between the primary facts & belief. (h) That "objections filed" before the AO were not disposed off by him before proceeding to assess the assessee.

4.

That the CIT (A) did not give a full opportunity to the appellant & passed the order mechanically.

5.

That no opportunity was given to the assessee of cross examination. 6. That relevant material was ignored & the assessment is based on irrelevant material/considerations. 7. The Ld. A O has never provided the investigation material on the basis of which addition of Rs. 9.22 crore has been made and also not given any opportunity to cross examine the party, the statement of which was recorded by Investigation Wing. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not treating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the I T Act, as invalid, bad in law, unjust and contrary to the facts and law. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the facts that notice u/s 147/148 was serviced after the period of limitation and the proceedings initiated on this ground is wrong and bad in law.

M/s New Height Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

10.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the various information and record made available hence addition made by Ld. CIT(A) is wrong and bad in law.

11.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs. 23.05 lacs without considering the facts and addition made on the basis of surmises and conjecture only without evidencing the payment. 12. That notice u/s 148 was issued based on borrowed material without independent application of his own mind by the Ld. A.O. & this vitiates the action taken. 13. That the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,65,170/- without assigning any reason whereas addition was made on notional basis. Hence addition made is wrong and bad in law.

14.

The appeal craves leave to amend or delete any of the above ground of appeal.”

(B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”, for short) for the assessee through a written letter dated 08.05.2022 informed that the assessee had opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (“VSVS”, for short) and that the Designated Authority has already issued Form-5 under VSVS. A copy of Form-5 issued by the Designated Authority was also enclosed with the aforesaid letter. At the time of hearing, the Learned Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue submitted that the appeal has become infructuous in view of the assessee opting for VSVS; and that the appeal may be dismissed as M/s New Height Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT withdrawn. After due consideration and in view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that this appeal has become infructuous on account of aforesaid VSVS, and that this appeal may be treated as withdrawn on account of the aforesaid VSVS. Accordingly, this appeal having become infructuous, is treated as withdrawn and is hereby dismissed.

(B.1) Before we part, we hereby clarify, by way of abundant caution, that if for some reason the disputes under this appeal before us are not settled under the aforesaid VSVS, then the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of this appeal in accordance with law.

(C) In the result, this appeal is dismissed.

This order was already pronounced orally on 27th June, 2022 in Open Court, in the presence of Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue, after conclusion of the hearing. Now this order in writing is signed today on 30/06/2022.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →