TARUNA ABHAY SOI,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2548/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 December 2022AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on a wrong assumption about the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement. The appeal was against a reassessment order, and the scheme was opted for a different, original assessment order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as infructuous because the CIT(A) mistakenly believed the case was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. However, the assessee had opted for the scheme for an earlier assessment order, not the reassessment order which was the subject of the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous due to a mistaken belief that the case was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, when the settlement pertained to a different assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani
Hearing: 13/12/2022Pronounced: 23/12/2022

O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 17.08.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that by passing the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously dismissed the appeal of the assessee by treating the same as infructuous because the assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwaas Act 2020 (hereinafter “the scheme”) for the relevant assessment year ie. AY 2015-16. However, according to the Ld. AR, the Ld. CIT(A) erred 2 A.Y. 2015-16 Taruna Abhay Soi in assuming so, because he erred in such an assumption due to a confusion caused since there were two (2) assessments in this relevant assessment year. First assessment was the original assessment passed dated 29.12.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”); and the second assessment order was the re-assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 29.03.2022. And that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme for the original/first assessment order dated 29.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY. 2015-16. And to corroborates this fact drew our attention to the page no. 1 to 30 of the PB. Thereafter, he drew our attention to Form No. 1 & 5 which assessee had filed/received as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. He drew our attention to page no. 35 to 46 of the PB wherein we note that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwaas Scheme in respect of assessment order dated 29.12.2017 (original/first assessment order). Thereafter, the Ld. AR, drew our attention to the re-assessment/second order of the AO passed for AY. 2015-16 u/s 147/144B of the Act dated 29.03.2022 which was impugned/appealed by assessee before the Ld. CIT(A); and the Ld. CIT(A) by passing the impugned Appellate Order has mistakenly on wrong assumption of fact that the assessee’s case has already been settled by Vivad Se Vishwaas Scheme (supra) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee which according to him was erroneous.

3 A.Y. 2015-16 Taruna Abhay Soi 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR could not controvert this fact. In the light of the aforesaid facts discussed, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the assessee’s appeal emanating from the re- assessment order of the AO dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s 147/144B of the Act on the wrong assumption that it has been settled as per the Vivad Se Vishwaas Scheme as demonstrated/discussed (supra); and as we noted earlier, the assessee had opted for Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme for the original/first assessment order dated 29.12.2017 and the assessee had not opted for Vivad Se Viswas Scheme against the re- assessment order dated 29.03.2022 and that the assessee had preferred an appeal against the re-assessment order dated 29.03.2022. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided de-novo in accordance to the law.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →