Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who confirmed additions of Rs. 26,49,500/- and Rs. 2,00,500/-. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal by not condoning the delay in filing. Subsequently, the assessee opted to settle the appeal under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
Held
The appeal has become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee had also raised grounds regarding the rejection of the condonation of delay application by the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the condonation of delay application and whether the penalty imposed was bad in law.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 250, 143(3), 50C, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR
Chhaya Masurkar v. National Faceless Appeal 1, Ward No. 9, Ram Mandir Center (NFAC) Road, Katangi, Balaghat (MP)- Delhi (Jurisdiction Officer, 481445. Income Tax Officer, Balaghat (MP)-110001. PAN:CAKPM8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, CA Respondent by: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR) O R D E R (A) The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi, dated 23.02.2024 for the assessment year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: -
1. On the facts & circumstances of the case LD CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the condonation of delay application in spite of having reasonable case as submitted by assessee henceforth the order of CIT(A) may kindly be quashed.
2. On the facts & circumstances of the case LD CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue on merit & simply rejecting the appeal by disallowing condonation of filling appeal application. ., The order passed by Ld. CIT (A) NFAC under section 250 of the IT Act 1961 is bad in law on facts and liable to be quashed.
The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 5,45,849/- under section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act ie the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and ‘in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO by simply rejecting the application for condonation in filling appeal and hence CIT(A) order is arbitrarily unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 5,45,849/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the impugned imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,45,849/- u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act as passed by AO by simply rejecting the application for condonation in filling appeal and grossly failed to deal issue of concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of relevant income in terms of explanation attached to it without specifying the precise default and hence imposed penalty was vague, non-communicative and thus non Page 2 of 3 speaking defeating the purpose ’ of notice in relevance and therefore, the penalty. proceedings qua relevant addition is not sustainable in law as there was no valid initiation of penalty proceedings for relevant addition.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,45,849/- u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act as passed by AO by simply rejecting the application for condonation in filling appeal and ignoring the fact that the impugned penalty order under appeal is not tenable under law as the additions in the quantum proceedings did not establish the default attributed to the appellant for which penalty is livable u/s 271(1)(c) .” (B) In this case, assessment order dated 20.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,12,22,600/- as against the returned income of Nil. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.26,49,500/- was made by the Assessing Officer on account of income from capital gain u/s 50C of the Act. Further, addition of Rs.2,00,500/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 23.02.2024 whereby he confirmed the aforesaid additions. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 23.02.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A).
(B.1) At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”, for short) for the assessee informed that the assessee has opted to settle the aforementioned appeal under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (“DTVSVS”, for short) and that the Designated Authority has already issued Form -2 and Form - 3 under DTVSVS, 2024. He also drew our attention to letter dated 06.08.2025 sent to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) in this regard. Copy of Form - 2 and 3 issued by Designated Authority under DTVSVS was also enclosed with the Page 3 of 3 aforesaid letter. Ld. Departmental Representative (“DR”, for short) for Revenue has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, this appeal has become infructuous on account of aforesaid DTVSVS, and this appeal is treated as withdrawn on account of the aforesaid DTVSVS. Accordingly, this appeal having become infructuous, is treated as withdrawn and is hereby dismissed.
(B.2) It is hereby clarified, by way of abundant caution, that if for some reasons the dispute under this appeal before me is not settled under the aforesaid VSVS, then the assessee will be at liberty to approach Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for restoration of this appeal in accordance with law.