Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an AO's assessment which included an addition of Rs. 55,50,000/- as Long Term Capital Gain. During the appellate process, the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2020, and sought to withdraw the appeal before the CIT(A) contingent on the issuance of Form 5. Despite receiving Form 3, the assessee failed to make the required payment, leading to the non-issuance of Form 5 and the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal as withdrawn without addressing its merits.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Addl./JCIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. It directed the assessee to provide necessary documents and evidence without seeking undue adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as withdrawn without adjudication on merits due to incomplete Vivad Se Viswas Scheme compliance, and the validity of assessment proceedings including notice issuance.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(2), Section 234A, Section 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
Assessment Year : 2014-15 Yogesh Jagannath Satav, The Income Tax Officer, Fadai Chowk, Nagar Road, Ward – 12(4), Pune Wagholi, Taluka-Haveli, Vs. Pune-412207 PAN : BBTPS3761B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Digambar Surwase Department by : Shri Manish Mehta Date of hearing : 20-01-2026 Date of 28-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER
PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.06.2025 of the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai [“Addl./JCIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2014-15.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) (National Faceless Assessment Centre) erred in dismissing the appeal of appellant even though Form-5 under Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not issued the appellant by Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax. The appellant prays that appeal may be restored back to file to of CIT(A) for hearing the appeal on merits.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed under section 250 by CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principal of natural justice. The appellant prays for just, fair and appropriate relief.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) NFAC erred in not passing a speaking order on the grounds raised by the appellant before NAFC. The appellant prays for just, fair and appropriate relief.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant prays that appeal deemed to be withdrawn, may be revived.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant submit that the order of learned A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, and weight of evidence, probabilities and facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, it is liable to be quashed.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CITIA) NFAC erred in confirming assessment order passed on the basis of invalid notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7. On the facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CITIA) NFAC erred in confirming the assessment completed without issuing a valid notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in accordance the provisions of Act and as held by various judicial pronouncements. The notice issued on a public holiday is bad in law. Accordingly, the assessment completed on the basis of the said notice is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.55,50,000/- to returned income of the appellant.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by learned AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and void ab intio as the order is passed / issued without following the circular no 19/2019 dated 14/08/2019 issued by the CBDT.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the learned AO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and void ab intio as the communication framed contrary to the CBDT Circular no 19/2019 dated 14/08/2019 which mandates the quoting the computer- generated Documents Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the communication. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the appellant submits that no capital gain is taxable in the absence of cost of acquisition. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the interest charged under section 234A and section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”
3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn for the reason that the assessee had opted for Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2020 and requested for withdrawal of appeal filed before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) subject to issue of Form 5. The assessee, however, failed to make payment of taxes payable as per Form 3 issued by the Jurisdictional Commissioner due to which Form 5 has not been issued to the assessee and the matter remained to be settled under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2020. He, therefore, urged that AY 2014-15 the matter may be sent back to the file of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits. The Ld. DR had no objection to the above request of the Ld. AR.
We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) by making an addition of Rs.55,50,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). In the meantime, the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings, opted for Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2020 and received Form 3 from the Department. Pursuant thereto, while submitting Form 4, the assessee requested for withdrawal of appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) subject to issue of Form 5 by Jurisdictional Commissioner. Admittedly, the assessee failed to make payment of taxes as per Form 3 and hence Form 5 has not been issued by the Jurisdictional Commissioner. Since the assessee had applied for withdrawal of appeal, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn without dwelling into the merits of the case. Under these circumstances and in the interest of justice, in our considered view, the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard on merits of the case by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). Our view finds support from the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Surekha Hanumantrao Pawar Vs. DCIT in for AY 2012013, dated 19.12.2023.
Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case enumerated above, we deem it fit and proper, in the interest of justice and fair play to set aside the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and to pass speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/evidence as may be required/called upon on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We direct an order accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.