HARYANA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,PANCHKULA vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR has applied for an adjournment. We have duly considered his application for A.Y.2017-18 2 adjournment and we are convinced that ld. DR must be pre- occupied in some other urgent issues and we would have not hesitated in granting the adjournment but we find that appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that assessee has availed benefit of 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020’ and resolve the dispute with the Department. This factum mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) is incorrect. According to the assessee, it has availed 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' only for an appeal vide which a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed but it has not availed benefit of the scheme in the quantum appeal. Therefore, in any case, such an issue would be relegated to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We have apprised the Sr.DR who is available in the Court Room and pointed out that this appeal is to be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for deciding on merit. It is further observed that if on account of non availability of complete facts, this factum is found to be incorrect by the AO, then he will be at liberty to file an application for recall of our order but such application be filed within the time limit available under Section 254(2) of the Act.

This appeal of the assessee is allowed. Impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merit.

In the result, appeal is allowed.