SAHARA PURE EATABLES CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT, MUMBAI-3, NEW DELHI

When the appeal was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice of hearing, evidenced through the postal acknowledgment kept on record.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. As could be seen from the order of the first appellate authority, he has dismissed assessee’s appeal by treating it as infructuous, assuming that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute arising in the appeal under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. However, it is the case of the assessee that the first appellate authority has completely misconceived the facts, as, for the appeal relating to the impugned assessment year, the assessee has not opted for settling the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme but wanted to contest the appeal on merits.

It is the case of the assessee that the declaration under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was preferred in respect of another appeal, which already stands dismissed by the first appellate authority. Considering the limited grievance of the assessee that in respect of the present appeal, the assessee has not filed any declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, we are inclined 2 | P a g e to set aside the impugned order of the first appellate authority and restore the issues back to his file with a direction to decide assessee’s appeal on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.