What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed them to verify if the assessee had indeed opted for the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme. If not, the appeal should be decided on merits.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the presumption that the dispute was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme. The assessee contended that they had not opted for the scheme for this specific appeal and had not filed the relevant form.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal was wrongly dismissed based on a mistaken assumption of settlement under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme.

Om Prakash, Gurgaon vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE- & SH. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. D.R

Hearing: 22.08.2023Pronounced: 22.08.2023

ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT : Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17.

At the time of call, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice of hearing through postal mode. Considering the nature of grievance raised by assessee, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing Learned Departmental Representative and based on material available on record.

Om Prakash vs. ITO 2 3. The ground raised by assessee is as under:

1. That Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in rejecting the appeal of the appellant assessee as deemed to be withdrawn with the wrong presumption that appellant assessee has settled the dispute under Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, 2020 and assessee has filed Form 3 issued by the PCIT, Faridabad under sub-section 1 of section 5 of DTVSV Act bearing certificate no.278241030020321 on 02.03.2021 while assessee has not filed any form 3 in respect of appeal under consideration and therefore order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) NFAC needs to be set aside and quashed.”

As could be seen from the ground raised, the limited grievance of the assessee is against dismissal of his appeal in limine.

We have heard the Departmental Representative and perused materials on record. On perusal of record, it is observed that assessee had preferred an appeal contesting addition of Rs.51,50,166/- made by the Assessing Officer. Assuming that the assessee has opted for settling the dispute arising in the appeal under the Direct Tax Vivad se Viswas Act, 2020, the first appellate authority has dismissed assessee’s appeal. However, as could be seen from the ground raised, it is the case of the assessee that qua the subject appeal filed before the first appellate authority, the assessee had not opted for settling the dispute under the Vivad se Viswas Scheme and no such Form 3 under the Vivad se Viswas Scheme, as alleged by the first appellate authority, was furnished by the assessee. Considering the specific contention of the assessee as per the ground raised, we set aside the impugned order of the first appellate authority with a direction to verify the relevant facts and in case it is found that the assessee has not opted for settling the dispute arising in the appeal under Vivad se Viswas Scheme, the first appellate authority must proceed to decide

Om Prakash vs. ITO 3 the appeal on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.08.2023

OM PRAKASH,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), GURGAON

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments