Taxpayer eligible for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas benefit despite counsel's error in filing appeal mode Delhi HC held that petitioner's appeal was pending on the specified date (31.01.2020) for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas benefit eligibility. The assessee ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Taxpayer eligible for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas benefit despite counsel's error in filing appeal mode
Delhi HC held that petitioner's appeal was pending on the specified date (31.01.2020) for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas benefit eligibility. The assessee filed appeals in both physical and digital modes, with the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the physical appeal and sustaining reassessment on the digital appeal. The Tribunal remanded the physical appeal matter, giving it fresh life. HC ruled that the 2020 Act does not distinguish between appeal modes, and the petitioner should not suffer due to counsel's inadvertent error in filing mode. The rejection orders were set aside as the appeal was validly pending.
Issues involved: The writ petition challenges rejection orders under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The main issue is whether the petitioner's appeal was pending before the statutory authority under the Income Tax Act on the specified date.
Details of the judgment:
Rejection Orders: The writ petition contests three rejection orders dated 31.01.2021, 25.03.2021, and 09.04.2021 passed by the designated authority under the 2020 Act. These rejections were based on the ground that the appeal was not pending on 31.01.2020.
Background of the Case: The petitioner filed its return for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 31.03.2009, which led to a reassessment in 2016. Subsequently, appeals were made in physical and digital modes, resulting in conflicting orders by the authority.
Tribunal's Intervention: The Tribunal's remand order on 01.04.2019 revived the physical mode appeal, creating a situation where the order on merits remained intact. The petitioner then filed a fresh appeal in 2020 after the Finance Act received assent.
Court's Analysis: The Court considered whether the appeal was pending on the specified date, emphasizing the significance of the Tribunal's remand order and the subsequent appeal filed by the petitioner.
Decision: The Court held that the appeal was indeed pending on 31.01.2020, contrary to the rejection orders. It set aside the impugned orders and directed the authority to proceed with the petitioner's declarations under the 2020 Act.
Separate Judgment by Judges: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
