Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. The grounds of appeal primarily challenged the validity of notices issued u/s 148A and 148, and the additions made u/s 68. Subsequently, the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
Held
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal, in light of this, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Key Issues
Whether the notices issued u/s 148A and 148 were valid? Whether additions made u/s 68 were justified? Whether the assessee's withdrawal of appeal due to opting for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme should be accepted?
Sections Cited
148A, 148, 147, 144B, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds:
Ground No. 1: Ground No. 1: 1.1. On the facts and 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC ['the CIT(A)'], erred in upholding the validity of the NFAC ['the CIT(A)'], erred in upholding the validity of the NFAC ['the CIT(A)'], erred in upholding the validity of the order passed under section ('u/s') 148A(d) and the validity order passed under section ('u/s') 148A(d) and the validity order passed under section ('u/s') 148A(d) and the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Ac of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Ac of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act"), which were issued without jurisdiction. (the "Act"), which were issued without jurisdiction. (the "Act"), which were issued without jurisdiction. 1.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in upholding the order 1.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in upholding the order 1.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in upholding the order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act on the passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act on the passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act on the grounds that the Appellant could not object to the issue of grounds that the Appellant could not object to the issue of grounds that the Appellant could not object to the issue of jurisdiction once jurisdiction once the Assessment proceedings the Assessment proceedings were were concluded, without considering the reponse on 18th April concluded, without considering the reponse on 18th April concluded, without considering the reponse on 18th April 2023. 1.3. Thus, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s. 1.3. Thus, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s. 1.3. Thus, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s. 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and notice u/s 148 of the Act 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and notice u/s 148 of the Act 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and notice u/s 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22nd May 2023 be considered bad in law. dated 22nd May 2023 be considered bad in law.
2. Ground No. 2: 2. Ground No. 2: 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act, without /s 148 of the Act, without following the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court's decision following the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court's decision following the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court's decision in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TS Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TS Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TS-298-HC- 2024(BOM) thereby amounting to contempt of court. 2024(BOM) thereby amounting to contempt of court. 2024(BOM) thereby amounting to contempt of court. 2.2. Thus, the Appella 2.2. Thus, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s. nt humbly prays that notice u/s. 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and notice u/s 148 of the Act 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and notice u/s 148 of the Act 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and notice u/s 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22nd May 2023 be considered bad in law 3. Ground dated 22nd May 2023 be considered bad in law 3. Ground dated 22nd May 2023 be considered bad in law 3. Ground No. 3: 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in .1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in .1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/ made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/ made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 68 of the Act.
3.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that 3.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that 3.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that additions were not additions were not made on the basis of any relevant made on the basis of any relevant information available with the Ld. AO information available with the Ld. AO 3.3. The Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s 148A(b) 3.3. The Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s 148A(b) 3.3. The Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the issue of order u/s 148A(d) and notice consequently the issue of order u/s 148A(d) and notice consequently the issue of order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of th u/s 148 of the Act be considered void.
Ground No. 4: 4. Ground No. 4: 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which was issued the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which was issued the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which was issued without a Document Identification Number (DI without a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the N) in the body of the notice. body of the notice. 4.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in not considering the 4.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in not considering the 4.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in not considering the legal precedent relied upon by the Appellant. legal precedent relied upon by the Appellant. 4.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s 4.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s 4.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22nd May 2023 be considered void. dated 22nd May 2023 be considered void.
Ground No. 5: 5. Ground No. 5: 5.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in 5.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in 5.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO amounting t made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/ o Rs. 1,20,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 68 of the Act. 5.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in holding that there was no 5.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in holding that there was no 5.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in holding that there was no violation violation violation of of of principles principles principles of of of natural natural natural justice justice justice without without without adjudicating on the submission and additional evidences adjudicating on the submission and additional evidences adjudicating on the submission and additional evidences filed on 7th October 2024 which had brought in fact filed on 7th October 2024 which had brought in fact filed on 7th October 2024 which had brought in facts contrary to the finding of the Ld. AO. in Para 17 to Para 20 contrary to the finding of the Ld. AO. in Para 17 to Para 20 contrary to the finding of the Ld. AO. in Para 17 to Para 20 of the Assessment order. of the Assessment order. 5.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that the Ld. AO 5.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that the Ld. AO 5.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete the addition amounting to Rs. be directed to delete the addition amounting to Rs. be directed to delete the addition amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/ 1,20,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act
At the outset, the At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted for the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute by filing an that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute by filing an that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute by filing an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, application under the 2024. Accordingly, the assessee seeks to withdraw the present . Accordingly, the assessee seeks to withdraw the present . Accordingly, the assessee seeks to withdraw the present appeal, subject to the acceptanc appeal, subject to the acceptance of the application under the said e of the application under the said scheme. In view of these facts, the appeal is dismissed as scheme. In view of these facts, the appeal is scheme. In view of these facts, the appeal is withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to file an , with liberty granted to the assessee to file an , with liberty granted to the assessee to file an application for recalling the appeal in the event that the Department application for recalling the appeal in the event that the Department application for recalling the appeal in the event that the Department does not accept the assessee’s a does not accept the assessee’s application under the pplication under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
The appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed.