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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 761/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 January 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observation was incorrect as the assessee had only availed the scheme for a penalty appeal, not the quantum appeal. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed to the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal, incorrectly stating that the assessee had resolved the dispute with the department under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020'.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on an incorrect assumption about the assessee availing the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' for the quantum appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Nalin Nohria, CA & Shri B.K.Nohria,CA
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 08.01.2025Pronounced: 08.01.2025

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.

ITA No.761/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 3

3.

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.

4.

In the result, appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced on 08.01.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →