SHEEJA VAMADEVAN SATHI,VARKALA V. ITO, WARD 1(4), KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 523/COCH/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sheeja Vamadevan Sathi against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, which dismissed her appeal on the grounds of non-compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The scheme required the payment of a tax amount as determined in Form 3, which the assessee failed to comply with by not filing Form No.4. The original assessment added Rs.1 Crore to her income for AY 2014-15 following a survey and scrutiny of her financial documents. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not addressed the merits of the case and thus remitted the matter back for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34337 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJIT KUMAR DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: R. KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 250; 143(1); 133A

Judgement Text

"ITANo.523/Coch/2023 Sheeja Vamadevan Sathi, Trivandrum IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHINBENCH:COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.523/Coch/2023 AssessmentYear:2014-15 Sheeja Vamadevan Sathi Varkala Park International Railway Station Road Varkala Trivandrum 695141 PAN NO :AXTPS9216Q Vs. ITO Ward-1(4) Thiruvananthapuram-3 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri R. Krishnan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date of Hearing : 06.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2025 O R D E R PERKESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 12.5.2023vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052797573(1) for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2014-15 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 523/Coch/2023 Sheeja Vamadevan Sathi, Trivandrum Page 2 of 4 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.10,43,500/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 3.1.2015. Thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Cash deposits in savings bank account is more than the turnover”. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act as well as 142(1) of the Act were issued calling for specific details. ITA No. 523/Coch/2023 Sheeja Vamadevan Sathi, Trivandrum Page 3 of 4 3.1. Further, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s business premises M/s. Hotel Varkala Park International on 25.2.2015. Since the case was already selected for limited scrutiny by CASS, approval was obtained from Principal CIT to convert it into a complete scrutiny as a survey was conducted in respect of assessment year 2014-15. On verification of the documents and after considering the submissions made by the assessee, the AO determined the additional income of the assessee amounting to Rs.1 Crore and added the same to the returned income and completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.1,10,43,500/-. 3.2. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2016, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that as the assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and already filed Form 1 & 2 and subsequently the certificate in Form 3 was also issued by the department but the assessee did not pay the tax amount as determined in Form 3 by filing Form No.4, the moot question is whether the appeal can be decided on merit? The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC held that upon issuing Form No.3 to the assessee by the designated authority, being the jurisdictional Principal CIT, the appeal is deemed withdrawn. Thus, as the appeal is stated as withdrawn, this appeal becomes infructuous and also the assessee has not responded to any of the notices sent to her and as there is no response to appeal notices, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Thus, on the aspect of non-compliance and on the aspect of appeal being treated as withdrawn, the appeal becomes infructuous and accordingly dismissed. 3.3 Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. ITA No. 523/Coch/2023 Sheeja Vamadevan Sathi, Trivandrum Page 4 of 4 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is undisputed fact that ld. CIT(A)/NFAC disposed of the appeal without going into the merit of the case by stating reason that as the appeal is stated as withdrawn by virtue of not paying the tax determined as payable in Form 3, by filing Form No.4, the appeal becomes infructuous. Further, we find that the assessee has also not responded to various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) on 3 occasions. Being so, in the interest of justice and fair play as well as, as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, we remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and to decide the same on the merits of the case in accordance with law. Needless to say, that reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to submit relevant documents/records/submissions/information as required by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to substantiate her claim. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th Jan, 2025 Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) JudicialMember Bangalore, Dated: 28th Jan,2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Cochin. "