REFOP INDIA COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 78(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2874/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 January 2024AY 2013-14Bench: the CIT(A) and at no point of time the assessee had filed any application for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and the issue was not settled under the said scheme. But, the assessee had opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 for the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 92CA of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, but the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeals filed against the order passed u/s 201(1A) of the Act on the wrong findings that the assessee had opted for Vivad 4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as infructuous, as the assessee had not opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme concerning the Section 201(1A) orders. Consequently, the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 with a 343-day delay, requesting condonation due to non-receipt of impugned orders and discovering them via the income tax portal. The CIT(A) dismissed these appeals as infructuous, erroneously believing the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for the orders under Section 201(1A). The assessee clarified that the scheme was only opted for assessment orders under Section 143(3) r.w.s 92CA.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned, and whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing appeals as infructuous based on an incorrect assumption that the assessee opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for the disputed orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A),Section 143(3),Section 92CA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI

Hearing: 17/01/2024Pronounced: 19/01/2024

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: There is a delay of 343 days in filing the captioned appeals.

The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay containing that the orders impugned have not been served to the came to know about the passing of the impugned order only on 13/07/2023 when the assessee perused the income tax portal.

Considering the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee and for the reasons stated thereof, the delay in filing the present appeals are condoned.

2.

In the above captioned appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 06/09/2022 wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as infructuous on the ground that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had challenged the order passed by the ACIT, Circle-78(1), New Delhi u/s 201(1A) of the Act before the CIT(A) and at no point of time the assessee had filed any application for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and the issue was not settled under the said scheme.

But, the assessee had opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 for the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 92CA of the Act for Page 2 of 4 erroneously dismissed the appeals filed against the order passed u/s 201(1A) of the Act on the wrong findings that the assessee had opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Therefore, Ld. AR sought for restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merit of the case.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Lower Authorities.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has not opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 in respect of the orders passed u/s 201(1A) of the Act for A.Y.2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. The Ld. CIT(A) has committed error in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee by recording erroneous finding and dismissed the Appeal as having become infrutuous. Therefore, the issues involved in the present appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 19th January, 2024.

More judgments on Section 201(1A)

All 4,608 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →