ROSELABS FINANCE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-7, , MUMBAI

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

Roselabs Finance Ltd., AY 2013-14

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] erred in a. disposing appeal having appeal no. CIT(A), Mumbai-49/10450/2016-17 filed by the appellant against penalty order dated 30 September 2016, passed under section 271D of the Act. b. the learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant stating that the appellant has opted for Vivad se Vishwas ('VSV') Scheme whereas the appellant had not opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme in respect of the said ap- peal. c. Further, the appellant submits that a rectification letter dated 23 August 2021 was filed before the learned CIT(A) to rectify the aforesaid mistake apparent from records and restore the said appeal. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the rectification application filed by the appellant. d. It is submitted that for assessment year 2013-14, the appellant had also filed an appeal [appeal no. CIT (A) 49, Mumbai/10088/2018-19] before the learned CIT(A) against assessment order dated 21 December 2018, passed under sec- tion 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act. e. For the aforesaid appeal no. CIT(A) 49, Mumbai/10088/2018-19, the appel- lant had opted for VSV Scheme. The learned CIT(A) passed an order dated 31 May 2021 under section 250 of the Act considering that the Pr.CIT(Central), Mumbai-4 had certified the full and final payment of taxes vide Form No.5 dat- ed 5 April 2021 in terms of provisions of clause (2) of Section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned CIT(A) in his order stated that the ap- peal became infructuous as per Clause 2 of Section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. f. In view of the above, it is abundantly clear that two appeals were pending for assessment year 2013-14 before the learned CIT(A), details are summarized as under:

Roselabs Finance Ltd., AY 2013-14 Sr. Appeal Appeal No. Whether Remark No. against Opted for order VSV Scheme 1 Section CIT (A), Mumbai- No The learned CIT(A) errone- 271D of 49/10450/2016- ously passed an order dat- the Act 17 ed 31 May 2021 disposing the appeal considering it as a case under VSV. 2 Section CIT (A) 49, Mum- Yes The learned CIT(A) correctly 143(3) bai/ passed order dated 31 May r.w.s. 147 10088/2018-19 2021, disposing the appeal pursuant to Form 5 issued under VSV. g. In view of the above, disposal of appeal no. CIT (A), Mumbai- 49/10450/2016-17 for assessment year 2013-14 is a mistake apparent from record. The appellant submits that order passed u/s 250 dated 31 May 2021 in respect of appeal no. CIT (A), Mumbai-49/10450/2016-17 is erroneous. The ap- pellant requests your honour to treat the order passed by the learned CIT(A) as null and void and the said appeal be restored back to the files of the learned CIT(A) for fresh hearing on merits of the case.”

Roselabs Finance Ltd., AY 2013-14 CIT(A) held that the appeal has become infructuous and thus dismissed it.

4.1. To this effect, assessee made a submission before the ld. CIT(A) on 23.08.2021 stating that assessee had not opted any ‘Vivaad Se Vishwas’ Scheme in respect of disputed demand raised pursuant to the penalty order dated 30.09.2016 passed u/s.271D of the Act. Rather, assessee had opted for ‘Vivaad Se Vishwas’ Scheme in respect of disputed demand raised vide order dated 21.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. In this respect, assessee furnished copy of form 3, certifying the amount of tax due for settlement of arears for the aforesaid order. Accordingly, there was a mistake apparent from record committed by the ld. CIT(A) for treating the benefit availed by the assessee under the ‘Vivaad Se Vishwas’ Scheme against the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 in respect to the impugned penalty order passed u/s.271D. However, ld. CIT(A) had not rectified his order which led assessee to come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

Roselabs Finance Ltd., AY 2013-14 5.1. Considering the facts on record and submissions made before us, we are in agreement with the submission made by the ld. Counsel of the assessee to remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication on the grounds of appeal taken before him. We take note of the fact that dismissal by ld. CIT(A) of the appeal filed by the assessee as infructuous is on incorrect fact. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored back. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, ground taken by the assessee in this respect is allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 09 July, 2024