MUTHUSWAMY & CO, CHENNAI V. ITO WARD-5, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 455/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6507 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R ANITA
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . , , , BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NO: 455/CHNY/2020 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S. MUTHUSWAMY & CO., 103, EAST CAR STREET, TIRUNELVELI TOWN 627 006. [PAN: AANFM 5482F] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -5, TIRUNELVELI. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) ' ( / APPELLANT BY : MR. Y. SRIDHAR, CA +,' ( / RESPONDENT BY : MS. R. ANITA, JCIT ( /DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2021 ( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.04.2021 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, MADURAI IN ITA NO. 0020/1 6-17 DATED 08.11.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. :-2-: ITA NO: 455/CHNY/2020 2. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BELATEDLY BY 22 DAYS AND PLEADED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. 3. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICA TION. 4. THE ABOVE CASE WAS HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO UTILIZE THE DIRECT TAXES VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEM E, 2020 TO SETTLE PENDING DISPUTE RELATING TO DIRECT TAXES AND IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FORM NO 1 AND 2 AND AWAITING FOR FORM NO. 3 FROM THE DES IGNATED AUTHORITY. 5. THE BENCH HAS CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BO TH SIDES AND AFTER HEARING BOTH PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FORM NO 1 AND 2 AND AWAITING FOR FORM NO. 3 FROM THE DESIGNATED AUTHORI TY. THEREFORE, ONCE THE ASSESSEE FILED A DECLARATION IN FORM NO.1 ALONG WIT H UNDERTAKING AND EXPRESSED THEIR WILLINGNESS TO SETTLE PENDING DISPU TES REGARDING DIRECT TAXES, THEN THERE IS NO POINT IN KEEPING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED THE ASSESSEE, SUPRA, AS WITHDRAWN. HOWEVER, LIBERTY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO RESTORE THE A PPEAL, IN THE EVENT OF THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY, FOR ANY REASON REJECT THE AP PLICATION FILED BY THE :-3-: ITA NO: 455/CHNY/2020 ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE SAID ACT. WE, FURT HER MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS FOR ANY REASON OPTED OUT FROM THE SCHE ME OR THE APPLICANT UNDER THE SCHEME MISREPRESENT ANY FACT WHICH RESULT ED IN REJECTION OF APPLICATION FILED UNDER THE SCHEME, THEN THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 4(6) OF THE ACT, SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO SUCH APPEAL AND IN SUCH CASE, THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE CLAIMS WHICH WERE WITHDRAWN UNDER SECTION 4 AND ALL THE CONSEQUENCES UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT AGAINST THE DECLARANT ASSE SSEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN REVIVED. WE, FURTHER MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD PROMPTLY INFORM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THEIR D ECISION TO OPT OUT OF THE SCHEME OR REJECTION OF APPLICATION BY THE DESIGNATE D AUTHORITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SO AS TO ENABLE TO FILE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATION TO RESTORE THE APPEALS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 08 TH APRIL, 2021 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ' ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) $% /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) % /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED: 08 TH APRIL, 2021 JPV (+3454 /COPY TO: 1. ' / APPELLANT 2. +,' /RESPONDENT 3. 6 ) ( /CIT(A) 4. 6 /CIT 5. 4+ /DR 6. 9 /GF