KHUSHI RAM DANSENA, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-3, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that they have opted Vivad se Vishwas Scheme of the department in respect of penalty proceedings and that they had filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in respect of quantum matter. That as a matter of fact with regard to the penalty proceedings before the Vivad se vishwas Scheme of the department, the assessee successfully had obtained Form 5 which is also placed on record herein. However, with regard to quantum, the same was assailed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC inadvertently had mistaken the receipt of Form 5 by the assessee through Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme of the Department as receipt with regard to quantum appeal before him. That in reality, the same was received by the assessee in respect of the penalty proceedings for which, the assessee had assailed before the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC however dismissed the appeal of the assessee on ground that assessee had received Form 5. In this way the quantum appeal remained un-adjudicated before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. In other words, the quantum appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC remained un-adjudicated while the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that Form 5 has been received by the assessee which in fact was in respect of penalty proceedings and not on the quantum.