Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order from the CIT(A). The appeal was filed 72 days late. The assessee claimed they were unaware of the previous order and only became aware upon receiving a notice under Section 271(1)(c). The delay was considered unintentional and the appeal was admitted.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on an incorrect assumption that the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee clarified that the dispute settled was from a different assessment order (under Section 143(3)), not the one under appeal (under Section 147 read with Section 144B). Therefore, the CIT(A) wrongly appreciated the facts.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to a mistaken belief that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 147, 144B, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (in short ‘CIT(A)’) and it relates to A.Y 2014-15.
The appeal is barred by limitation by 72 days. The assessee has filed a petition requesting the bench to condone the delay, wherein it is stated that assessee was not aware of the order so passed by the learned CIT(A) and it came to its notice after receipt of a notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Shine Star Accordingly, it is submitted that the delay is not intentional. We heard the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
The learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has settled the dispute under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The learned AR submitted that the impugned assessment order has been passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and the dispute in this assessment year has not been settled by the assessee under Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. He submitted that assessee has, in fact, settled the dispute arising from the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by wrongly appreciating the facts mentioned above. Accordingly, he submitted that all the issues may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits.
We heard the learned DR and perused the record. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned AR, we are of the view that the issues contested in this appeal needs to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits, since the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on wrong premise. Accordingly, we set-aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them on merits.
Shine Star 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th May, 2024.