INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2056/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 November 2022AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on an incorrect assumption of facts. The appeal was accordingly remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the assumption that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme for the appeal before the CIT(A). However, the assessee clarified that the scheme was availed for different appeals pending before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was not availed for the appeal before him, and whether interest under Section 244A was correctly denied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A,Section 244A(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C‘ BENCH

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH & SMT KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth
For Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Hearing: 09/11/2022Pronounced: 16/11/2022

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.

This appeal in A.Y.2009-10 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in appeal No.CIT(A)-22, Mumbai/10122/2019-20 dated 12/07/2022 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 28/08/2019 by the ld. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(2)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“The appellant objects to the order dated 12 July 2022 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Commissioner (Appeals)) on the following among other grounds: Appeal has no connection with the declaration submitted under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme

1.

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the fact that the appeal has no connection with the application/ declaration filed by the appellant for opting the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. 2.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the appeal was with respect to the interest under section 244A(1)(b) not granted by the Deputy Commissioner on the refund arising out of self- assessment tax paid by the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not deciding the following grounds of appeal contained in Form 35: "Interest under section 2444(1)(b) on refund arising out of self- assessment tax 1. learned Deputy Commissioner erred in not granting interest under section 244A(1)(b) of Rs.43.64,53.900 on refund of Rs.3,96,77,62,722 arising out of self assessment tax. "Additional interest under section 2444(IA) on refund

2. The learned Deputy Commissioner erred in not granting additional interest under section 244A(1A) for delay in giving effect to the Commissioner (Appeals) order." General

5. The appellant prays for relief as per the grounds of appeal.

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

6.

Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other.

7.

The appellant reserves the right to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal.”

3.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee had opted for ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme’ and settled the disputes pertaining to issues raised before him. Before us, the ld. AR pointed out that though it is a fact that assessee had indeed availed ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme’ for A.Y.2009-10, the same was availed in respect of appeals pending before this Tribunal in and ITA No.1391/Mum/2013 and not against the appeal pending before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR placed on record the copy of Form No.1 filed before the competent authority disclosing these facts and also placed on record the copy of Form No.5 issued by the competent authority clearly mentioning the very same Income Tax Appeal numbers pending before this Tribunal against which Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme had been availed by the assessee. Hence, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on incorrect assumption of fact. Hence, we deem it fit to remand this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the issues raised by the assessee in the grounds raised before the ld. CIT(A) on merits, in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The ld. CIT(A) is hereby directed to dispose of the said appeal within six months from date of receipt of this order. The assessee is also directed not to take any adjournment except due to exceptional and unavoidable circumstances. With these directions, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

4.

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

Order pronounced on 16/11/2022 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.

More judgments on Section 244A

All 1,186 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →