KIRAN BEDI ,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Order

PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT, Appeal Addl/JCIT(A)-10, Delhi dt. 12/06/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In the present appeal assessee has raised the following grounds:

1. That the CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and order of CIT(A) is bad as same has not been decided on merit of case.

2. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 210000 under section 69A of Income Tax Act.

3. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 1521908 on account of cessation of liability under section 41(1) of Income Tax Act.

4. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the disallowance of salary amounting to Rs. 685000/-.

5. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the disallowance of dewali expenses amounting to Rs. 14300.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return for the A.Y 2017-18, which was selected for scrutiny. The AO passed an assessment order dated 30.12.2019 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining the total income at Rs. 24,14,670. As per AO the assessee failed to substantiate certain claims with adequate documentary evidence. Despite opportunities, the assessee did not provide requisite details to justify discrepancies noted in the return. Consequently, the AO upheld the additions.

4. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but during the proceedings, she opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) by filing Form-1 dt. 28.01.2021 and Form-3 dt. 10.02.2021. However, she failed to submit Form-4 and Form-5 to finalize the settlement. The CIT(A) issued notices on 30.01.2024 and 03.06.2024, seeking compliance and substantiation of grounds of appeal. As no response or documents were furnished, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution under Section 250, upholding the order of the AO.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us.

6. During the course of hearing the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard and order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law.

7. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and stated that despite multiple opportunities provided by the Ld. CIT(A) i.e 30/01/2024 and 03/06/2024 to substantiate the grounds of appeal raised, but no reply or details have been submitted by the Assessee.

8. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had failed to file Form No. 4 & 5 under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. In our considered opinion once the Form No. 3 & 4 has not been issued by the Revenue, the assessee is not obliged to make the payment in accordance with Vivad Se Vishwas Act, and therefore it is duty of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue on the basis of material and information available on the record. In the present case, though it is correct that the assessee had failed to deposit the amount under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme but nonetheless the Ld. CIT(A) is also at fault as the Ld. CIT(A) had failed to decide the issue on merits. In view of the above we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the matter afresh after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law.

9. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/04/2025 कृणव" सहाय लिलत कुमार (KRINWANT SAHAY) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद"/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER