SHREE TRIVENI FOODS,PARWANOO vs. ITO PARWANOO, PARWANOO

At the outset, it was pointed out that there is a delay of 900 days in filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had never been served with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, he was under the bona fide belief that the appeal was still pending adjudication before the Ld. CIT(A). It was only when the assessee filed an application under the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024” (VSVS), that he came to know that the appeal had already been dismissed. It was submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred on account of circumstances beyond the assessee’s control. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) to contend that a liberal approach should be taken in matters of condonation.

The Ld. DR on the other hand, opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee did not establish sufficient cause. However, she fairly left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.

I have considered the rival submissions and, in view of the facts on record as well as judicial principles, I am satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time on account of the peculiar facts of the present case, as captured herein below. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

On merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed against the quantum assessment order. However, while disposing of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself by treating the appeal as one arising out of the penalty order. It was submitted that the assessee had already settled the penalty proceedings separately under the VSVS, 2022. Thus, there was no occasion to treat the appeal in relation to the penalty. The Ld. AR argued that such misdirection vitiated the appellate proceedings. They prayed that the appeal be restored to its original place and number so that the assessee’s application filed under the VSVS, 2024, in respect of the quantum dispute may be processed by the Revenue in accordance with law. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). She submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal after considering the available records and the assessee cannot now seek to reopen the proceedings. However, she conceded that if the Tribunal were to hold that the assessee’s appeal was wrongly dismissed by linking it to the penalty order, then appropriate directions may be issued for fresh consideration by the CIT(A). 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the quantum assessment order. However, the Ld. CIT(A), by misdirecting himself, proceeded on the premise that the appeal related to the penalty order and dismissed it. 8.1 As the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on a wrong footing, I hold that for all practical purposes the appeal deserves to be restored to its original place and number. 8.2 Consequent to the restoration of the appeal, I also deem it appropriate to direct the Revenue to process the assessee’s application filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, strictly in accordance with law, treating the restored appeal as one arising from the quantum assessment order.