BAYER CROPSCIENCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3149/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 December 2022AY 2004-054 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeals based on a misunderstanding of who filed the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed as infructuous by the CIT(A) under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. However, the assessee contended that the application under the Act was made by a merged entity (Monsanto India Limited), not the current assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as infructuous under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act when the application was made by a merged entity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani
For Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha
Hearing: 30/12/2022Pronounced: 30/12/2022

PER G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT

1.

When an application seeking early hearing in the captioned matters was called out, the learned representative for the assessee explained that there is an obvious and unintended error on part of the First Appellate Authority, viz. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in dismissing the appeals of the assessee

2 to 3159/Mum/2022 M/s. Bayer CropScience Limited as infructuous in terms of clause 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide similarly worded but separate orders dated 13.06.2022.

2.

It was pointed out, by referring to Ground of Appeal No. 1.2 of the Memo of Appeal, which reads as under :

“1.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that application under VSV Scheme filed by Appellant was for withdrawing an on-going dispute of Monsanto India Limited, i.e. company amalgamated/merged with Appellant vide NCLT order w.e.f. 1 April 2019, which was pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and not pending before the learned CIT(A).” that it is not the assessee which has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 but M/s. Monsanto India Limited, which is the entity that has amalgamated/merged with the assessee as per order of NCLT w.e.f. 01.04.2019. Thus, the First Appellate Authority has wrongly considered the assessee company having made an application under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

3.

It was, therefore, contended that assessee would be satisfied if the matter is remanded back to the file of the First Appellate Authority to consider and dispose-off the captioned appeals of the assessee on the Grounds raised therein on their merit.

4.

The Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid factual matrix brought out by the Learned Representative. Both sides converged that the captioned appeals

5.

In light of the uncontroverted factual position noted in the foregoing paragraphs, and with the consent of both sides, the impugned orders passed by the First Appellate Authority are hereby set-aside and the matters are restored to his file with directions to adjudicate the Grounds of Appeal raised therein de novo as per law. Of course, the First Appellate Authority shall provide appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and, thereafter pass order in accordance with law.

6. It is hereby clarified that our decision to remand the matter back to the file of First Appellate Authority is no reflection on the merits of the issues raised in the appeals, which shall be dealt with by the CIT(A) as per law.

7.

Resultantly, the captioned appeals are allowed, as above.

Above decision was pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the sides at the conclusion of hearing today, 30th December, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →