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

PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 04.08.2022 passed for assessment year 2017-18. 2. 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.
A.Y.2017-18
3

“Poonam”

आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :

आदेशानुसार/ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार/