HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED(AS LEGAL SUCCESSOR OF GLAXOSMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LIMITED),RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS WARD-1), , RAJAHMUNDRY

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 19/01/2021 passed by the CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi U/s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 is presently erroneous and bad in law.

That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal No. NFAC/2007-08/10002385 [Manual Appeal Register No. CIT(A), Tirupati 317/2015-16] filed by the appellant against the order dated 09/09/2009 passed by the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Rajahmundry u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act erroneously holding that the appellant has opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020. 1. 2. That the CIT (A) erred on facts in not appreciating that the appellant had not opted for settlement of the aforesaid appeal under the VSV Act but had opted for settlement of departmental appeal no. ITA: 32 of 2013 pending before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court for same assessment year 2008-09 against the allowabilty of Fringe Benefit Tax.

That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not considering the application for adjournment dated 07/01/2021 e-filed by the 3 appellant wherein the appellant had sought time to preparing submissions to be filed in the aforesaid appeal.

That the CIT(A) erred on the facts and in law in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the order passed by the AO was beyond juri iction and bad in law inasmuch as the same was passed without giving adequate opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural justice.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 2,70,716/- made by the AO on account of alleged short deduction of TDS U/s. 194C of the Act.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 58,447/- made by the AO on account of alleged short deduction of TDS U/s. 194J of the Act.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the interest Rs. 84,736/- charged u/s. 201(1A) of the Act.”

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the impugned orders by wrongly holding that the assessee has opted for Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme for settling its disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 for both the AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in fact the assessee had not opted for VSV Scheme in respect of the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) but for opted for settling the issues involved in the Departmental appeal in ITA No.32 of 2013 and ITA No.114/2015 which are pending before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court pertaining to the AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10. 4 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly submitted that in the present cases, the assessee has neither opted for settlement of disputes under VSV Scheme nor has made any such request before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee for the both the AYs under consideration are contrary to the pleadings of the assessee and therefore these appeals are liable to the set-aside and prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the appeals on merits.

On the other hand, Ld. DR did not oppose to the submissions and prayer of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record in the light of the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. On perusal of the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) it is apparent that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed both the appeals of the assessee for the AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 by holding that the assessee had opted for availing the benefits of Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 which is factually not correct. Hence, in our considered view, both the instant appeals need fresh hearing by the Ld.

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

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. ववभधगीय प्रनतननधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ववशधखधऩटणम/ DR, ITAT,

Visakhapatnam गधर्ा फ़धईऱ / Guard file 6. आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER