The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remitted the matter to the for fresh adjudication, finding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] had failed to verify the applicability of the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020” before dismissing the appeal.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,appellant-assessee,faced its second round of litigation regarding the assessment for AY 2011-12, completed on February 28, 2014, under Section 143(3). The CIT(A) granted partial relief on August 31, 2016. The tribunal disposed of the appeal on October 4, 2021, since the appellant opted for the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.”
The Future of Tax and Finance: Upskill with Us
On March 13, 2018, the Assessing Officer(AO) passed an order implementing the CIT(A)’s decision from 2016. The assessee appealed against the order, but the CIT(A) dismissed it on July 4, 2022, citing the settlement under the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.”
The assessee argued before the tribunal that the CIT(A) had misunderstood the facts, as the issues settled under the scheme were those contested before the ITAT, not those that were decided in the assessee’s favor. On September 28, 2022, the tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without verifying this.
The ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, instructing them to assess the applicability of the settlement and, if necessary, adjudicate the matter on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Future of Tax and Finance: Upskill with Us
Following the appellate tribunal’s order, the CIT(A) passed a fresh order on July 25, 2024, dismissing the appeal as withdrawn, once again stating that the issue was settled under the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.” However, the CIT(A) failed to mention the tribunal’s September 2022 order and did not provide any explanation for its decision.
Read More: ITAT Dismisses Appeal after Assessee Opts for Settlement under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024
The two member bench comprising Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) found that the CIT(A) had failed to follow the Tribunal’s directions and had dismissed the appeal without verifying the facts.
As a result, the order was set aside, and the CIT(A) was instructed to decide the appeal on merits, providing reasoning for the settlement under the scheme if applicable. The assessee was directed to provide a copy of the order to the CIT(A), and the AO was also instructed to do the same.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
