RAVINDER HOODA,ROHTAK vs. JT DIT (I AND CI), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2555/DEL/2023Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 February 2024AY 2018-19Bench: Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have accepted the assessee's submissions regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and manual submission of forms. It directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to the assessee upon furnishing the requisite documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Sub-Registrar, was penalized INR 1,01,900 under section 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for late filing of the SFT statement. The penalty was sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the delay was due to technical problems and that they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, paid the due amount, and submitted forms manually due to online submission issues.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271FA for late SFT filing is sustainable when the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme but faced technical difficulties with online form submission, leading to manual submission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271FA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Jain, Adv. &, Shri Samyak Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Hearing: 21.02.2024Pronounced: 23.02.2024

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”) dated 11.07.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised following revised grounds of appeal:-

1. “That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the order dated 27.06.2019 passed by the Learned Assessing Officer under section 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the ground of being bad in law. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 271FA of the Act, since the same was passed without giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is against the principal of natural justice. 1.2. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in imposing penalty under section 271FA of the Act, since the late filing of the SFT statement Online by the appellant was due to the technical problems faced by the appellant while filing the same. However, the fact should be appreciated by your Honour, that the SFT statement was duly filed manually by the appellant for the said year on 29/11/2018.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 1,01,900/-, imposed by the assessing officer under section 271FA of the Act, since the appellant opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the due amount of Rs. 30,570/- vide challan no. 04599 dated 29/10/2021 and BSR Code 0302275. 2.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts in considering that the Form 4 of the VSVS was not submitted by the appellant, however, the same was duly submitted by the appellant manually to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak. The said form was submitted manually as the assessee was facing problem while filing the same online.”

2.

Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee is Sub- Registrar in Haryana Government, posted at Madlauda Panipat. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and thereafter, imposed penalty of INR 1,01,900/- vide order dated 27.06.2019.

3.

Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

Apropos to the grounds of appeal

, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee had adopted “Vivad se Vishwas Scheme” but Form Page |

2. Nos. 4 & 5 were not generated. It is stated that the demand created by penalty has been paid by the assessee vide Challan No.04599 dated 29.10.2021 and BSR Code 0302275.

6.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below.

7.

I have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee had opted for “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme” but Form No.4 could not be submitted electronically and same was submitted manually. Therefore, looking to the totality of the facts, I am of the considered view that Ld.CIT(A) ought to have accepted the submissions of the assessee and granted relief to the assessee. I hold accordingly. The AO is directed to give benefit of “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme” to the assessee upon furnishing of the requisite documents. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 271FA

All 190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271FA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →