Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. The appeals were found to be time-barred by 85 days, but the assessee filed a condonation petition with an affidavit explaining the delay. The delay was attributed to circumstances beyond the assessee's control.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay. For most appeals, as the assessee was proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme for tax dispute settlement, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme fails. The penalty appeal was dismissed as infructuous since the quantum appeal was withdrawn.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing appeals, and whether appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for a tax dispute settlement scheme.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Department represented by Shri Ashok Gautam, Sr.DR Date of hearing 19/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH: 1. These appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 28/12/2023 and 29/12/2023 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2012-13 to 2016-17 respectively as per the grounds of appeal on record. Facts and circumstances of these appeals are common and interconnected, therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals were clubbed and heard together and are being decided by this consolidated order.
2. That from perusal of the record, we find that these appeals are time barred by 85 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit explaining the said delay.
3. We have considered the contents of the affidavit and found that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. to 244/Ran/2024 Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT That the delay has been caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay and deal these cases as per documents on record.
In to A.Y. 2013-13 to 2016-17, the ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee had filed application stating that they are proceeding for Direct VSV Scheme of the department and Form No. 4 has already been issued. This was also accepted by the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for revenue.
We are of the considered view that when the intention of the assessee is clear that they are proceeding for the settlement of tax dispute within the said scheme of the department, therefore in such scenario, it does not serve any logical purpose to keep the appeals pending before the Tribunal at this stage. We therefore, treat these appeals of the assessee being dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty that in case the assessee fails to reach logical end through Direct VSV Scheme, in such scenario within the para meters of law, the assessee shall be allowed to apply for reinstatement of these appeals. Accordingly, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Now we take up for A.Y. 2013-14. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which arose from the quantum appeal of assessee in for A.Y. 2013-14. Once the quantum appeal of assessee is dismissed as withdrawn on the ground of availing VSV Scheme-2024 of the department by the to 244/Ran/2024 Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT assessee, therefore, the appeal regarding penalty imposed and levied needs no adjudication and have become infructuous and is also dismissed.