MONOPOLY INNOVATIONS PVT LTD.,RAIGAD vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, UTTAR PRADESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2011/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2022AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had rejected the assessee's claim for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme without proper verification or seeking necessary information. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against orders confirming the levy of fee under Section 234E for delayed TDS statement filing. The assessee claimed to have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, but this was rejected by the authorities for non-submission of specific forms.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme claim by tax authorities without proper verification was justified. Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Hearing: 28.09.2022Pronounced: 30.09.2022

O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)

1.

These appeals are field by the assessee against different orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 30.06.2022, 11.07.2022 and 30.06.2022 for the Assessment Years 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively, in sustaining the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for default

2.

Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 2010/MUM/2022 for Assessment Year 2016-17 as a lead appeal.

3.

Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The Ld. CITIA) has erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant did not furnish proof of declaration of income and subsequent payment of taxes under VSV Scheme without appreciating that the VSV application by the consequent authority.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in not granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant in terms of natural justice:

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,07,120/-on account of interest on short/non deduction of TDS and late filing fees:

4. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.”

4.

In spite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Thus, we proceed to dispose off these appeals on merits on hearing the Ld.DR.

6.

Considered the submissions of the Ld.DR and material placed on record. We observe from the record that assessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A) that assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputed tax. However, both the authorities rejected the claim of the assessee for the reason that assessee has not furnished Form No. 4 and Form No.5. They have not considered verifying the claim of the assessee on the above claim, they should have atleast asked the assessee to submit the relevant informations like Form No. 1, 2, and 3 or they should have verified internally with the authorities who are dealing Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme before rejecting the claim of the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to verify the contention of the assessee in totality and decide the appeal accordingly as per law.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

8.

Coming to the appeals in ITA.No. 2011 & 2012/Mum/2022 for the A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20, since facts in these appeals are mutatis

4 2011 & 2012/MUM/2022 Monopoly Innovations Pvt. Ltd., mutandis, therefore the decision taken in ITA.No. 2010/Mum/2022 for the A.Y.2016-17 is applicable mutatis mutandis to these appeals also. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

9.

To sum-up, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 30th September, 2022.

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →