Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee was subjected to a search operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, leading to assessments under Section 153A. Following the assessment, a penalty of Rs. 4,40,454/- was levied under Section 271(1)(c) due to additional income offered. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, erroneously assuming that the assessee had applied under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, when in fact no such application was filed.
Held
The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal based on an incorrect assumption about the VSVS application. Without commenting on the merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal as infructuous by wrongly assuming the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, when no such application was filed.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(c), 132, 153A, 139
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
O R D E R
Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM:
This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2015-16 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.09.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘CIT(A)’], Raipur-3 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).
The grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous on 1. GND Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur the erroneous assumption that the Appellant had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Learned Assessing Officer, wherein the Assessing Officer levied penalty without specifying the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is untenable and bad in law.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Learned Assessing Officer, wherein the Assessing Officer has erred in levying penalty of Rs.4,40,454 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for.
The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at any time of hearing.”
3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee along with Sarthak Group of cases was searched under section 132 of the Act on 26.11.2019. Consequentially, its assessments were completed under section 153A of the Act. There was admitted additional income offered for tax in the return filed in response to the notice issued under section 153A of the Act than the income declared in the original Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) filed under section 139 of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by detailing the same in the assessment order passed under section 153A of the Act. Later, the Ld. AO levied the penalty of Rs.4,40,454/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the difference of income declared in the 2 GND Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur return filed in response to the notice issued under section 153A of the Act and the income declared in the original ITR filed under section 139 of the Act. Aggrieved with the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on the reasoning that the assessee had filed the petition for the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (‘VSVS, 2020’). Aggrieved with the impugned order, the assessee is before us.
4. Before us, none attended on behalf of the appellant assessee. Therefore, we heard Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (“Sr. DR”). At the outset, the Ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal on the reasoning that the assessee had gone to VSVS for the relevant matter. In fact, the assessee had not filed any VSVS application for the for the penalty of the relevant year. Hence, she was fair enough to admit that this case should be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit.
We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on the record. We find merit in the submission of Ld. Sr. DR that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal as withdrawn on the reasoning that the assessee has filed an application under VSVS. Considering the facts in entirety and without offering any comment on the merit of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned 3 GND Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur
order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh/denovo. We order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above.