MANOJ CHATURVEDI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 384/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 November 2020AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

Following the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement was not in their favor.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order dismissing their appeal against the reassessment order. During the hearing, the assessee stated they had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's decision to opt for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, leading to the withdrawal of the appeal. The original grounds of appeal concerned the validity of reassessment proceedings and additions made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69A,Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 148,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Respondent: Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal (DR)
Hearing: 18/11/2020Pronounced: 23/11/2020

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 (for short „the CIT(A), Thane, for the assessment year 2010-11, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the „Act‟).

2.

The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective ground:- “1.In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in passing order u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 merely on the basis of third party statements. Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in adding Rs. 86,75,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A even though: a. The notice u/s 143(2) was issued 6 months after issuance of notice of reopening; this renders the entire reassessment proceedings void. b. The Assessing Officer cannot carry out reassessment proceedings in spite of the fact that assessment was completed u/s 143(1) earlier. c. The Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings merely on the statements of third parties. d. The Assessing Officer has not furnished copies of statements of the persons on whom search was conducted. e. The said documents on the basis of which additions were made which were seized from Maad Group had no evidentiary value.

3. In facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in passing the order u/s 143(3) R W S 148 as the reassessment proceedings initiated by Assessing Officer under section 148 were illegal and void ab initio because the Assessing Officer should have issued notice under section 153C and should have framed assessment under section 153C, read with section 153A particularly when the Assessing Officer received information from the office of the ACIT Central Circle 2, Thane that a search action had been conducted on the Maad Group of Companies on 31/07/2014 and assessed u/s 153A.

4. In facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making routine additions in reassessment u/s 148 in the absence of any incriminating material. 5 In facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in completing Search assessment U/s 143(3) rws 148 without furnishing copy of the satisfaction recorded u/s 153 [C] 6 In facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in completing Search assessment U/s 143(3) rws 148 and has passed the order on the basis of approval not granted u/s 153D. 7 In facts .and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in completing Search assessment U/s Assessment Year: 2010-11 143(3) rws 148 on the basis of enclosed document seized from and belonging to the said Maad group but not furnishing the copy of the same to the Appellant. 8 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in initiating penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) and charging interest u/s 234 A, B, C & D.”

3.

This case was fixed for hearing on 18.11.2020. However, when the case was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed that the assessee has submitted an application stating that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, therefore the appeal may be kept in abeyance.

4.

The Ld. departmental representative did not oppose the assessee‟s application. In the case of M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF) vs. ACIT, the Hon‟ble Madras High Court has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn in which the counsel had made the similar submissions before the Hon‟ble Court. The observations of the Hon‟ble High Court are as under:-

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →