The Calcutta High Court has recently condoned the delay of assessee-Aditya Saraf (HUF) in an appeal by the revenue against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
The respondent/assessee has filed an application in GA/3/2022 with a prayer to allow the respondent/assessee to pay only 50% of the disputed tax amount i.e. Rs.2,63,919/- (the disputed amount of tax as per demand notice by the revenue being Rs.5,27,838/-) on the income assessed by the revenue vide assessment order dated 20.12.2016 without including any interest or penalty along with interest of Rs. 89,170/- received by the appellant-revenue under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act.
Notably, a case for manipulation of share price and rigging by investing in penny stocks was ruled against the assessee in Aditya Saraf HUF vs ITO, [2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 752] by the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
In appeal, The tribunal by the impugned order had allowed the assessee’s appeal and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and consequently set aside the assessment order.
The revenue did not challenge the said order before the Tribunal. However, the assessee thought it fit to avail the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and an application was filed by the assessee.
Soumen Bhattacharjee, Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and backed the rejection of appeal, on grounds of delay.
Asim Chowdhury, for the respondent-assessee submitted that the present appeal was filed by the revenue with a delay of 958 days.
The Division Bench of Justice T S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya observed that, “had the appeal been preferred within the period of limitation the assessee could have filed an application well before the time stipulated under the Scheme.”
The Court further noted that, “the assessee should not be non-suited for the default committed by the revenue in nor preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.”
Consequently, the division bench disposed of the appeal with a direction to the assessee to file the required application and the revenue was subsequently directed to consider the application on merits.
It was also clarified that the court has not delved into the merits of the matter.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
