POOSABBAN THANGARAJU,ERODE vs. ITO,WARD -1(4), ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 148/CHNY/2021Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) [NFAC] erred in dismissing the appeals based on the VSVS settlement, as the settlement only covered the penalty and not the main assessment. The matter was therefore set aside and remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 were dismissed by the CIT(A) [NFAC] because the assessee had opted for the VSVS scheme. However, the Form 5 issued under VSVS pertained only to a penalty levied under Section 271A, not the assessment orders themselves.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing appeals against assessment orders when the VSVS settlement only covered a penalty levied under Section 271A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271A,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Hearing: 27.04.2022Pronounced: 06.05.2022

O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi dated 26.03.2021 & dated 01.04.2021 relevant to the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.

2.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] has dismissed both the appeals of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has already opted for VSVS scheme and Form No. 5 dated 25.03.2020 has already been issued to the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that Form No. 5 has been issued in respect of penalty levied under section 271A of the Act alone and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] was not correct in dismissing the appeals of the assessee.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. DR has not raised any objection, but relied on the orders of authorities below.

4.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the assessment for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act both dated 09.11.2018 separately. Against the assessment order, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and subsequently, the appeals were migrated to ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] for adjudication. However, the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] dismissed both the appeals on the ground that the assessee has opted for VSVS and Form No. 5 has been issued by the designated authority towards settlement of disputed tax.

4.1 On perusal of the Form 5 dated 25.03.2021 issued under VSVS by the Designated Authority for both the assessment years, we find that the Form 5 has been issued for full and final payment of ₹.6,250/- as taxes in terms of VSVS order under section 5(2) dated 05.02.2021 pertains to disputed penalty levied under section 271A of the Act, against which, vide order dated 31.03.2021 for the AY 2007-08 and dated 01.04.2021 for AY 2008-09, the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] has passed separate orders by referring to the same Form 5, whereas, the present appeals were preferred by the assessee against the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. In view of the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] was not correct in dismissing the appeals for both the assessment years on the ground that the assessee has already opted for VSVS and Form 5 has been issued. In view of the above, the order passed by ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] is set aside for both the assessment years and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] to adjudicate the appeals on merits in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 06th May, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271A

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →