IE Venture Fund I Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner has filed the present petition, wherein the case of the petitioner was rejected on the premise that the petitioner’s case did not fall under Rule 9 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Rules, 2024. The petitioner had filed its return of income for the AY 2022-23, u/s 139 declaring loss of RS. 17,68,31,441/-. Case was picked up for scrutiny and petitioner was directed to furnish relevant evidence in support of its return on or before 16.06.2023. The petitioner was also required to provide further details. The petitioner responded to the said notice claiming that it was not carrying on any business or profession but was engaged in ‘investment activities’ and, therefore, was not required to maintain any books of account under Section 44AA of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued a show cause notice dated 15.03.2024 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why an amount of ₹17,68,47,978/-, which was paid to an entity named Smart Web Internet Services Limited should not be disallowed and added to the petitioner’s income. The record indicates that the petitioner readily accepted the said addition. It claimed that it had not in fact claimed any expenditure but the return had auto populated the said expense. AO passed assessment order disallowing the said expenditure and consequently assessing the petitioner’s income chargeable to tax at ₹16,537/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before CIT (A). In the meanwhile, AO also commenced penalty proceedings by issuance of notice dated 21.03.2024 under Section 274 read with Section 270A. The petitioner, being desirous of settlement of disputes under the DTVSV Scheme, filed a declaration in terms of Section 91 of the FA2 Act in the prescribed form [Form 1]. The same was apparently rejected on 28.10.2024 and thereafter, on 27.12.2024.
