M/S SAINI ELECTRONICS SECURITY SECURITY SYSTEMS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-26(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4873/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 March 2021AY 2009-103 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme to settle the dispute. Therefore, keeping the appeal alive would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was not accepted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c). The assessee sought an adjournment as they had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Tax Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the adjournment request.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed when the assessee has opted for a tax settlement scheme. The procedural aspect of seeking restoration of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 30th November 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–38, Mumbai, confirming penalty ` 86,000, imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") by the Assessing Officer pertaining to the assessment year 2009–10.

2 M/s. Saini Electronics Security Systems

2. When the case was called for hearing, neither the assessee nor any of its authorised representatives appeared before us to represent the case. There is no application for adjournment either. Consequently, we proceed to dispose off the appeal after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.

2.

During the course of hearing, we find that the assessee has filed a letter dated 5th February 2021, before the Registry of the Tribunal seeking adjournment in hearing of the appeal in view of the fact that the assessee has applied for settling the tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Tax Scheme, 2020. The letter submitted by the assessee is accompanied by the acknowledgement in Form–1 and 2 of the declaration filed under the aforesaid scheme. The aforesaid letter and the declarations are kept on record.

3.

The learned Departmental Representative has expressed no objection to the contents of the letter filed by the assessee.

4.

Considering the fact that the assessee has sought adjournment of the present appeal, as it has applied for settling the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, we are of the opinion that no purpose would be served in keeping the matter alive when the assessee has already approached Revenue authorities for settling the 3 M/s. Saini Electronics Security Systems dispute under VSVS 2020 and thus the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the assessee to seek restoration of this appeal in the event the application filed under Vivad Se Vishwas Tax Scheme is not accepted by the Department. It is further made clear that in such eventuality if the assessee seeks restoration of the present appeal by filing misc. application, the delay, if any, should be condoned without insisting upon filing any application for condonation of delay.

5.

In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9.03.2021

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 →