RAMAKRISHNAN VINAYAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 34(2)(1), , MUMBAI

Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

The order of the learned CIT(A) and learned AO is based on incorrect application of facts and wrong interpretation of law and therefore, is bad in law.

The reassessment order passed by the learned AO and upheld by learned CIT(A) is erroneous and bad in law in as much as the learned AO has passed the impugned order purely on presumptions, surmises and conjectures.

The order of the learned CIT(A) and learned AO is erroneous, bad in law, contrary to facts and circumstances of the case, grossly violative of principles of natural justice and hence, deserves to be quashed in toto.

The learned AO has erred in law by not serving notice under section 148 to the Appellant on time at the address of the Appellant in the manner prescribed and only serving show cause notice through hand delivery at an address where the appellant does not reside regularly on account of his employment reasons and thereby violating principles of natural justice.

The notices under Section 142(1) of the Act and the show cause notice were never served on the Appellant in the manner contemplated under the Act and the Rules made thereunder, and therefore the Appellant did not have an opportunity to respond to the same.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard through video conference, even-though the Appellant had specifically requested to grant an opportunity of being heard in the submission filed.

The learned AO has erred in law and in facts in passing the reassessment order in contravention of the provisions of Section 151A of the Act, and thus the proceedings are bad in law.

The learned CIT(A) / AO have erred and failed to appreciate that only real income, computed in the manner prescribed under the Act can be brought to tax.

The learned CIT(A) / AO ought to have appreciated that only legitimate taxes can be collected in terms of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, and thus ought to have allowed the permissible deductions/exemptions.

The learned AO has erred in law and in facts in not granting the exemptions provided by the employer under section 10 of the Act pertaining to Leave encashment, Gratuity. Conveyance allowance and others, while computing

The leamed AO has erred in law and in facts in not granting the deductions under Chapter VIA which are available to the Appellant while computing the total income and taxes.

The learned AO has erred in not obtaining the Form 16 from the employers of the Appellant under section 133(6) of the Appellant even though the learned AO was aware of who were the employers of the Appellant.

The learned CIT(A) has erred and failed to appreciate that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT is not applicable to Appellate authorities and CIT(A) was functioning and adjudicating in the capacity of Appellate authority and not in the capacity of Assessing officer.

The learned CIT(A) / AO has erred in law and in facts in not following the binding decisions which are in favour of the Appellant.

The learned CIT(A)/AO has erred in law and on facts, in levying additional interest under Section 234A and Section 234B of the Act, having regard to the assessed income.

The learned CIT(A)/AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act.

Assessee has placed on record a written submission dated 04.01.2025 wherein he has opted to resolve the dispute in this appeal under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024’ (VSV, 2024 scheme). Assessee has filed Form-1 dated 16.10.2024 against which the designed authority has issued a certificate in Form-2 calling upon the assessee to pay the applicable tax required under the scheme. Against this Form- 2, assessee has remitted the demand and filed Form-3 intimating payment of the demand to the designated authority. In this respect assessee has placed on record all these documents along with tax paid challan, to substantiate the submission so made. Assessee is awaiting the receipt of Form-4 for acceptance of its application under the said scheme from the designated authority.

Considering these facts on record and assessee having paid the demand as required under the said scheme, we find it appropriate to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, pursuant to the option availed by assessee for resolving the dispute in this appeal under VSV, 2024. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed with a liberty to restore / revive the appeal, in case the application for ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024’ do not materialize or is not accepted by the department.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.