SUSHILA KAVAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD6(3), CHENNAI

& 231/Chny/2021 2 2. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A) and stated that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by observing as under:- “I have perused the information furnished by the appellant and it is understood that the appellant has opted for “Vivad Se Viswas Scheme- 2020” and accordingly paid relevant taxes. In this regard Form-5 has also been issued by the concerned CIT/Pr.CIT, Chennai. Hence, the appeal filed is therefore disposed off accordingly.” The observation in other appeal is also exactly same as above. The ld.counsel stated that the CIT(A) was under wrong impression that the assessee had opted for “Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2020” but actually the assessee never opted for “Vivad Se Viswas Scheme- 2020” and hence, he requested that matter can be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the issues on merits.

When this fact was confronted to ld. Senior DR, he fairly conceded the position.

After hearing both the sides and going through the fact that the CIT(A) under wrong notion that the assessee has preferred application under “Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2020” and settled the disputed tax under the same, dismissed the appeals. Now, the ld.counsel for the assessee made statement that the assessee never & 231/Chny/2021 3 opted for “Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2020” and as the Revenue despite opportunity given could not prove that the assessee preferred “Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2020”, we set aside the orders of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication. These two appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.