PENINSULA LAND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 1 (3), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT dismissed the appeals, following a Madras High Court decision. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if their declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was not accepted.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle tax disputes. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was hearing cross-appeals related to these disputes.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the pendency of appeals when the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal considered the implications of this scheme on ongoing litigation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C‘ BENCH
Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH & SHRI RAVISH SOOD
आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):
These cross appeals in 702/Mum/2020 for A.Y.2016-17 arise out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-47/10263/2018-19 dated 15/11/2019 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 01/03/2019 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had already filed a declaration under ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes arising out of these appeals. This is considered as a statement made from the Bar.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Since, the assessee had already filed an application under direct tax “Vivad Se Viswas Scheme Act 2020”, there is no need to keep the appeal pending before us in view of the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Nannusamy Mohan (HUF) vs. ACIT in T.C.A. No.372 of 2020 dated 16.10.2020, wherein the Hon‟ble High Court after considering the intention of the assessee to avail the benefit of „Vivad se Vishwas Scheme-2020‟ (VSV scheme), had dismissed the appeal by observing in Para 7 to 9 as under:- “7. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration to be filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the 702/Mum/2020 M/s. Peninsula Land Ltd., said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the Division Bench for orders.
In the light of the above, we direct the appellant/ assessee to file the Form No.I on or before 20.11.2020 and the competent authority shall process the application/ declaration in accordance with the Act and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 (6) weeks from the date on which the declaration is filed in the proper form.
With this declaration, the Tax Case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and Consequently the Substantial Question of Law are left upon. No costs.”
In the light of the view taken by Hon‟ble Madras High Court cited (supra), we also give liberty to the assessee to get the appeal restored in the event that the assessee does not succeed on the declaration filed by the assessee under direct tax “Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2020”. In other words if the assessee‟s declaration to be filed is not accepted by the Revenue for any reason whatsoever, the assessee can make a prayer before the Bench for recalling of the order by filing a miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal. The Registry will place such petition before the Bench concerned.
In view of the aforesaid observations, we dismiss these cross appeals with a liberty to get them recalled in the eventuality of assessee‟s declaration not getting accepted by the Revenue.
702/Mum/2020 M/s. Peninsula Land Ltd.,
In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as that of the revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in open Court on 09/03/2021.
More judgments on Section 142A
- Zabuben Mepabhai Bharvad, Ahmedabad vs The PCIT - 1, AhmedabadITA 1233/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinit Arvind Shah, Jamnagar vs ACIT Cir - 1, JamnagarITA 507/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Pradeep H. Raheja, Mumbai vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA 7740/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Slimtile Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxSCA/13575/20233 Sept 2026
- Yuley Tannery, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 33(1), KolkataITA 1598/KOL/2026[2018-2019]Status: Heard3 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026