ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. CLITORIA VANIJYA PVT. LTD., DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5788/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 January 2021AY 2008-094 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the Revenue due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed on this basis.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting additions and penalties. During the hearing, the assessee informed the tribunal that they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for settlement of the dispute.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed because the assessee settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(A) This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 22.06.2017 for Assessment Year 2008-09. Grounds taken in this appeal of Revenue are as under:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the additions without considering the fact that notices were issued and served on the address as per return of income and record available with Assessing Officer. The assessee did not give any intimation regarding change of address during any of the assessment proceedings.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,42,11,280/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act rws 274 of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars resulting in concealment of income to the extent of Rs. 4,18,10,000/-.

ITA- 5788/Del/2017 Clitoria Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and fact in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,42,11,280/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 imposed by the AO when the appellant did not discharge its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness of the investors and genuinesness of the transactions during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at time hearing of the appeal.”

(B) At the time of hearing, at the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee informed us that the assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (“VSVS”, for short) for the settlement of subject matter of the disputes in this appeal. He drew our attention to Email dated January 04, 2021 sent from assessee’s side in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) giving intimation of the same, wherein copy of Form 3 issued by Revenue in respect of aforesaid VSVS was also attached; implying acceptance of VSVS declaration of assessee by Revenue. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted before us that this appeal may be dismissed on account of the aforesaid VSVS. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative)

[“Ld. CIT(DR)”, for short] did not express any objection to this. After due consideration, and in view of the foregoing; we treat this appeal as withdrawn by Revenue on account of the aforesaid VSVS. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being treated as withdrawn.

(B.1) Before we part, we hereby clarify, by way of abundant caution, that if for some reason it is found by Revenue that the disputes under this appeal before us are not fully settled under the aforesaid VSVS, then Revenue will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of this appeal, in accordance with law.

ITA- 5788/Del/2017 Clitoria Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. (B.2) With these directions, the aforesaid appeal of Revenue is dismissed, being treated as withdrawn.

(C) For statistical purposes, this appeal is dismissed.

This order was already pronounced on 05th January, 2021 in Open Court, in the presence of Representatives of both sides; after conclusion of the hearing.

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 →