Shine Star Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai allowed Shine Star’s appeal for statistical purposes and restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits after finding that the appeal had been dismissed on an incorrect factual premise. The assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal was delayed by 72 days. It explained that it was unaware of the CIT(A)’s order and came to know about it only after receiving a notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Considering this explanation to constitute reasonable cause, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. On merits, the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the understanding that the underlying dispute had already been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee clarified that the dispute settled under the Scheme arose from the original assessment order passed under Section 143(3), whereas the proceedings involved in the present appeal arose from a separate reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B.
Therefore, according to the assessee, the reassessment dispute had never been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. After considering the submissions and examining the record, ITAT accepted that the CIT(A) had proceeded on a wrong premise. It accordingly set aside the appellate order and restored all the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal did not decide the underlying reassessment additions on merits in this order. Consequently, the assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
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.
2. 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.
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th May, 2024.
