NATHAN ROBINSON ANDREWS,THANE vs. ITA WARD 29 (2) (4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1424/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 June 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on a wrong assumption of facts. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the mistaken belief that the assessee had opted for the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' to settle a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). However, the assessee had actually applied for the scheme to settle a penalty under Section 271B.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on an incorrect understanding of the assessee's application under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 02/06/2022Pronounced: 02/06/2022

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण मुंबई पीठ “बी ” �ी �वकास अव�थी, �या�यक सद�य एवं �ी अमरजीत �संह, लेखा सद�य के सम� IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1424/मुं/2021 (�न.व. 2014-15) (A.Y.2014-15) Nathan Robinson Andrews, 602, Evelina, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (West), Thane – 400 607. PAN: ACRPA- 4572-C ...... अपीलाथ� /Appellant बनाम Vs. I.T.O. Ward -29(2)(4), Room No.418, 4th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051. ..... ��तवाद�/Respondent अपीलाथ� �वारा/ Appellant by : None ��तवाद� �वारा/Respondent by : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क� �त�थ/ Date of hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क� �त�थ/ Date of pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 15/06/2021 for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The assessee in appeal has assailed the order of CIT(A) on the ground that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the pretext that the assessee has opted for ‘Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’(VSVS), whereas, the assessee has not filed any application under VSVS to settle penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’].

3.

Notice of hearing of the appeal was sent to the assessee on multiple occasions as under:

Date of issuance Date of hearing of notice 25/01/2022 14/02/2022 16/02/2022 29/03/2022 05/04/2022 02/06/2022 The notice of hearing issued for 14/02/2022 and 02/06/2022 have not been received back unserved from the Postal Authorities. Whereas, the notice sent for hearing on 29/03/2022 was received back unserved from Postal Authorities with remarks ‘unclaimed’. The assessee has not bothered to file revised Form No.36 to update his current/new address, in case the assessee has shifted from the address mentioned in Form No.36. It seems that the assessee is not keen to pursue his appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal is taken up for adjudication with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record.

4.

The first ground of appeal of assessee is that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of assessee on the pretext that the assessee has opted for VSVS to settle the dispute of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Whereas, the assessee had field application under VSVS to settle penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Act.

5. In view of the fact that the appeal of assessee has been dismissed by the CIT(A) on wrong assumption of facts, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on grounds raised in Form No.35.

6. The assessee shall make submissions/appear before the CIT(A) on service of notice, without fail and shall co-operate in the proceedings.

7.

In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →