Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2014-15, challenging reassessment proceedings and various additions under the Income Tax Act. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that the dispute had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and requested to withdraw the appeal. A letter dated 02.05.2025 and Form 2 were submitted as proof of opting for the scheme.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the Departmental Representative's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the settlement fails.
Key Issues
The key issues originally pertained to the validity of reassessment proceedings, alleged lack of opportunity, and various additions under the Income Tax Act; however, the primary issue addressed by the Tribunal was the permissibility of withdrawing the appeal due to settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
Sections Cited
250(6), 147, 148, 151, 153C, 69, 68, 69C, Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 07.06.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. BECAUSE the ld. “CIT(A)” is not justified in passing the order dated 07.06.2024 without affording due and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant and consequently the order passed by. Id. “CIT(A)” deserves to be set aside and matter restored to him for passing the order afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the “appellant.”
2. BECAUSE while passing the impugned order on 07.06.2024 the Id. “CIT(A)” mistook the adjournment application filed. by the “appellant” on 26.4.2024 to be the written submission and further overlooked the adjournment application dated 25.05.2024 filed by the “appellant” seeking a month’s time for filing ground wise written submission and, as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter restored to Id. “CIT(A)” for passing the order afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the “appellant”.
3. BECAUSE, even otherwise, the impugned order passed by the ld. “CIT(A)” is in violation of the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the “Act”, which required the ld. first appellate authority to state the points for determination, decision thereon and reason, for the decision, and owing to such a violation of the statutory provision, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and matter restored o Id. “CIT(A)” for passing the order afresh.
4. BECAUSE the Id. “CIT(A)” has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of re-assessment proceedings by deciding various issues raised in the ground no. 1 to 10 before him in a summary manner without dealing with and deciding all the legal issues raised therein.
5. BECAUSE while upholding the validity of re-assessment proceedings the Id “CIT(A)” failed to note and appreciate that (i) the assessment was reopened merely on the basis of change of opinion; (ii) reason to believe recorded by the AO are wholly deficient due to lack of necessary ingredients as required u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act; (iii) reason to believe was recorded on wrong facts; (vi) reason to believe was recorded merely on the basis of information received from investigation wing without independent application of mind by the AO; (v) reason to believe is highly vague in which there is complete lack of live-link or nexus between the information becoming available to the AO and formation of belief of escapement of income; (vi) assessment was re-opened for verification of claim made in the return; and (vii) the ld. AO did not dispose of the objection filed against the reason to believe, as per procedure laid down by the Apex Court in 259 ITR 19 (SC).
BECAUSE sanction u/s 151 of the “Act” was granted by the competent authority in a routine and casual manner without proper application of mind which has rendered the re-assessment proceedings void-ab-initio and the re-assessment order as bad in law and wholly without jurisdiction.
BECAUSE the assessment has been reopened on the basis of material said to have been found during the search of a third party and, therefore, without admitting, the proceedings against the “appellant” could have been initiated only u/s 153C of the “Act” and not u/s 147 of the “Act” and due to such an illegality in the initiation of reassessment proceedings, the assessment order date 29.03.2022 passed by the NFAC is bad in law and hence the same deserved to be quashed.
BECAUSE the ld. “CIT(A)” has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 41,20,800/- u/s 69 of the “Act” (although the AO had made the addition of the said amount u/s 68 of the “Act”) without appreciating that the long term capital gain of Rs. 35,15,239/- claimed by the assessee from transfer of shares of focus Indus res Ltd., is duly supported by requisite evidences which go to fully prove the genuineness of the purchase and sales transactions in the said shares.
BECAUSE the “CIT(A)” has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 82,416/- on account of alleged un-explained expenditure u/s 69C of the “Act” even though no evidence for the said expenditure having been incurred by the “appellant” has been brought on record by the authorities below.
BECAUSE the additions aggregating to Rs. 42,03,216/- have been made/confirmed without properly appreciating the submissions and evidences on record/ placed on record of the authorities below.
BECAUSE the additions have been made/confirmed on presumption, surmises and conjectures only.
BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and Principles of natural justice.
BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other.
Page 3 of 4 14. The appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 02.05.2025 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 02.05.2025 is reproduced as under: - “It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has issued Form 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. As the appellant has opted for settlement of tax arrear under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal.
In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, a liberty is given to the assessee for approaching the Tribunal for restoration of this appeal in the event of failure of settlement of tax disputes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14/05/2025.