SUYOJIT INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED.,NASHIK vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 553/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 July 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred by mistaking the certificate related to a penalty appeal for one pertaining to the quantum appeal. Consequently, the order of the NFAC was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the NFAC, Delhi, who mistakenly believed the assessee had withdrawn the appeal under the DTVSV scheme. The NFAC relied on a certificate (Form-5) that was actually related to a penalty appeal, not the quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC correctly interpreted the Form-5 certificate and whether the appeal was indeed withdrawn under the DTVSV scheme for the quantum appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 23-08-2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘NFAC’) for assessment year 2012-13.

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 03 days. Upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 03 days are condoned.

3.

At the outset, we note that the NFAC, Delhi dismissed the appeal of assessee taking into account a copy of certificate in Form No. 3 issued by the PCIT, Nashik and by holding that the assessee got prescribed form for the purpose of section 5(1) of the DTVSV, 2020 and treated the appeal of assessee deemed to have been withdrawn. The ld. AR placed on record Form-5 relating to Certificate No. 735156300211120 dated 21-11-2020 and argued that this Form-5 is relating to in respect of penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act and argued that the CIT(A) by mistake held the Form-5 relating to dispute penalty to be relating to the quantum appeal and treated the same as deemed to have been withdrawn. The ld. DR did not dispute that Form-5 as placed on record by the ld. AR today before us is relating to dispute of penalty as imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. We note that admittedly, the assessee availed DTVSV Scheme to the disputed penalty for A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA No. 971/PUN/2018 and the Certificate No. 735156300211120 dated 21-11- 2020 issued by the Designated Authority determining the amount is related to disputed penalty as u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act and the same the PCIT was taking into account while dealing the quantum appeal and treated the same as withdrawn by inadvertent mistake. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and restore the present appeal to his file for fresh adjudication. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06th July, 2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →