INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR V. SHRI BIKARAMJIT SINGH LAMBA, MUKTSAR

ITA 55/ASR/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5591 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 27; 271(1)(c); 271D

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 55/(Asr)/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Ward-II(2), Muktsar, [PAN: ACCPL7390J] Vs. Sh. Bikaramjit Singh Lamba, M/s. Guru Nank Khilona Mahal, Near Govt. Girl School, Bathinda Road, Muktsar. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Trilochan Singh P S Khalsa, DR Respondent by: None Date of Hearing: 21.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 24.12.2021 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [for short CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.05.2021, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), dated 21.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us. “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was correct in dismissing the appeal against the penalty u/s. ITA No.55-ASR-2021 2 27ID of the Act imposed by the JCIT-II, Bathinda by incorrectly holding the assessee has availed VSV Scheme against the penalty u/s. 27 ID of the Act. (ii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that the assessee had availed VSV Scheme only on penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act. (iii) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 2. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around a solitary issue, i.e., as to whether or not the CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty imposed on him u/s. 271D of the Act, for the reason, that he had opted for “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme” 2020? 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, penalty u/s. 271D was imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, Bathinda, vide his order dated 24.05.2019. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). Observing, that the assessee had opted for “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme” 2020, vide application dated 20.06.2019 and had been issued “Form No.5”, dated 05.05.2021 by the PCIT/CIT, the appeal filed by the assessee wherein he had a assailed the penalty imposed on him u/s. 271D was dismissed as infructuous as per the direct “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme” 2020. 5. The Revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter before us. ITA No.55-ASR-2021 3 6. At the very outset, it was submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short “DR”) that as the assessee had opted for the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme” 2020 as regards his appeal that was filed qua the penalty imposed on him u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, the CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and on the facts of the case in treating the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s. 271D as infructuous, for the reason, that the assessee had opted for the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”, 2020. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short “AR”) fairly admitted that the CIT(A), NFAC had inadvertently erred in treating the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty imposed on him u/s. 271D as infructuous, for the reason, that the assessee had opted for the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”, vide application dated 15.09.2020. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as stated by the Ld. DR, and rightly so, the assessee had opted for the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme” qua his appeal that was pending in respect of the penalty that was imposed on him u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the matter in all fairness be restored to the file of the CIT(A), with a direction that the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty imposed on him u/s. 271D be disposed off by way of a speaking order. 8. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee had opted for “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme” qua his appeal that was pending before the CIT(A) against the penalty that was imposed on him u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 28.06.2019. Admittedly, the CIT(A), NFAC had inadvertently treated the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty imposed on him u/s.271D as ITA No.55-ASR-2021 4 infructuous by wrongly observing that the assessee had opted for the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme” as regards the same. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that as the CIT(A), NFAC on the basis of misconceived facts had held the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty imposed on him u/s. 271D as infructuous, therefore, the order passed by him cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. We, thus, restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A), NFAC, and direct him to dispose off the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the JCIT, Range-II, Bhatinda u/s.271D, dated 24.06.2019 afresh. Needless to say, the CIT(A) while disposing of the aforementioned appeal shall offer a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 2 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 9. The Ground of appeal no.3 being general is dismissed as not pressed. 10. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed in terms of aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 24 th December, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M.L. Meena) (Ravish Sood) Accountant Member Judicial Member Date: 24.12.2021 prabhat Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T By Order