RAMESH BABUBHAI PATEL (HUF), MUMBAI V. ITO - 24(3)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 121/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2671 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITA VERMA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Capital Gains
• Section: 201; 68

Judgement Text

T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC - I BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) I.T.A. NO. 121 /MUM/ 201 9 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 ) RAMESH BABUBHAI PATEL - HUF A - 804, TWIN TOWER CHS LTD. 2 ND CROSS ROAD LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX ANDHERI WEST MUMBAI - 400 053. PAN : AALHR0190P V S . ITO - 24(3)(5) ROOM NO. 509 PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL, LALBAUG MUMBAI - 400 012. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) I.T.A. NO. 122/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14) SMT. KHYATI RAME SH PATEL A - 804, TWIN TOWER CHS LTD. , 2 ND CROSS ROAD LOKHAN DWALA COMPLEX ANDHERI WEST MUMBAI - 400 053. PAN : A IZPP5603P V S . ITO - 24(2 )( 3 ) ROOM NO. 6 09 PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL, LALBAUG MUMBAI - 400 012. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) I.T.A. NO. 123/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14) SMT. HANSA ROHIT PATEL A - 804, TWIN T OWER CHS LTD., 2 ND CROSS ROAD LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX ANDHERI WEST MUMBAI - 400 053. PAN : ASWPP2780Q V S . ITO - 24(2)(3) ROOM NO. 609 PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL, LALBAUG MUMBAI - 400 012. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) I.T.A. NO. 124/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14) SHRI ROHIT BABUBHAI PATEL - HUF A - 804, TWIN TOWER CHS LTD. 2 ND CROSS ROAD LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX V S . ITO - 24(3)(4) ROOM NO. 517 PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL, LALBAUG RAMESH BABUBH AI PATEL (HUF) SMT. KHYATI RAME PATEL ETC. 2 ANDHERI WEST MUMBAI - 400 053. PAN : ASWPP2780Q MUMBAI - 400 012. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY MS. SMITA VERMA DATE OF HEARING 19 . 11 . 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 .11 . 20 20 O R D E R TH E S E ARE APPEAL S BY FOUR DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S BELONGING TO SAME GROUP DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) [I N SHORT LEARNED CIT(A)] PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2013 - 14. 2. THE COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATE TO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT OF INCOME SHOWN AS CAPITAL GAINS . 3. AT THE OUTSET, I NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE S HA VE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION S THAT THE Y HAVE OPTED FOR SOLUTION OF DISPUTE UNDER THE VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME. 4. I NOTE THAT IN A SIMILAR SITUATION, HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS IN AN APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. NANNUSAMY MOHAN (HUF) VS. ACIT VIDE ORDER DATED 16.10.2020 HELD AS UNDER : - 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE, ON INSTRUCTIONS, SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE INTENDS TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME (VVS SCHEME FOR BREVITY) AND IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE IS TAKING STEP S TO FILE THE APPLICATION/DECLARATION IN FORM NO. I. 4. IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR THIS COURT TO DECIDE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW FRAMED FOR CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENACTED THE DIRECT TA X VIVAD SE VISHWAS ACT, 2020 (ACT 3 OF 2020) TO PROVIDE FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTED TAX AND FOR MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH OR INCIDENTAL THERETO. THE ACT OF THE PARLIAMENT RECEIVED THE ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT ON 17 TH MARCH 2020 AND PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ON 17 TH MARCH 2020. RAMESH BABUBH AI PATEL (HUF) SMT. KHYATI RAME PATEL ETC. 3 5. IN TERMS OF THE SAID ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN AN OPTION TO PUT AN END TO THE TAX DISPUTES, WHICH MAY BE PENDING AT DIFFERENT LEVELS EITHER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL OR BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OR BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. UNDER SECTION 2(J) DISPUTED TAX HAS BEEN DEFINED. IN TERMS OF SECTION 3, WHERE A DECLARANT MEANS A PERSON, WHO FILES A DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 4 ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DATE FILES A DECLARATION TO THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 4 IN RESPECT OF TAX ARREARS, THEN, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT OR ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, THE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE DECLARANT SHALL BE DET ERMINED IN TERMS OF SECTION 3(A - C) THEREUNDER. 6. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 3 STATES THAT IN CASE, WHERE AN APPEAL OR WRIT PETITION OR SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS FILED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY ON ANY ISSUE BEFORE THE APPELLATE FORUM, THE AMOUNT PAYA BLE SHALL BE ONE - HALF OF THE AMOUNT IN THE TABLE STIPULATED IN SECTION 3 CALCULATED ON SUCH ISSUE, IN SUCH A MANNER AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. THE SECOND PROVISO DEALS WITH THE CASES, WHERE THE MATTER IS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR BEFORE THE DISPUTE R ESOLUTION PANEL. THE THIRD PROVISO DEALS WITH CASES, WHERE THE ISSUE IS PENDING BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE FILING OF THE DECLARATION IS AS PER SECTION 4 OF THE ACT AND THE PARTICULARS TO BE FURNISHED ARE ALSO MENTIONED IN THE SUB SECTION S OF SECTION 4 , SECTION 5 OF THE ACT DEALS WITH THE TIME AND MANNER OF THE PAYMENT AND SECTION 6 DEALS WITH IMMUNITY FROM INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF OFFENCE AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN CERTAIN CASES. SECTION 9 OF THE ACT DEALS WITH CASES, WHE RE THE ACT 3 OF 2020 WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE. 7. AS OBSERVED, THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN LIBERTY TO RESTORE THIS APPEAL IN THE EVENT THE ULTIMATE DECISION TO BE TAKEN ON THE DECLARATION TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE SAID ACT IS NOT IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE. IF SUCH A PRAYER IS MADE, THE REGISTRY SHALL ENTERTAIN THE PRAYER WITHOUT INSISTING UPON ANY APPLICATION TO BE FILED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN RESTORATION OF THE APPEAL AND ON SUCH REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING A MISCELLANEOU S PETITION FOR RESTORATION, THE REGISTRY SHALL PLACE SUCH PETITION BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH FOR ORDERS. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE TO FILE THE FORM NO.I ON OR BEFORE 20.11.2020 AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORIT Y SHALL PROCESS THE APPLICATION /DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE PREFERABLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX (6) WEEKS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE DECLARATION IS FILED IN THE PROPER FORM. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE ABOVE AND NOTING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BEING OPTING FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE UNDER VSWS SCHEME IN THE PRESENT CASE, I TREAT THE S E APPEAL S BEING DISPOSED OFF AS WITHDRAWN. RAMESH BABUBH AI PATEL (HUF) SMT. KHYATI RAME PATEL ETC. 4 5. THE ASSESSEE S ARE GIVEN LIBERTY FOR RESTORATION OF APPEAL S IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ORDER AS ABOVE. BOTH THE PARTIES FAIRLY AGREED TO THE ABOVE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE S E APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE S ARE DISPOSED OF BY TREATING THE SAME AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE ITAT RULES BY PLACING THE RESULT ON NOTICE BOARD ON 23.11.2020. SD/ - (SH A MIM YAHYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 23 / 1 1 / 20 20 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ) PS ITAT, MUMBAI