TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT overturns CIT(A) decision on penalty under Sec 271(1)(c) I.T. Act 1961, cites Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme</h1> <h3>Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tongar Versus The ITO, Ward-3 (3), Income Tax Office, Noida</h3> Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tongar Versus The ITO, Ward-3 (3), Income Tax Office, Noida - Tmi Issues:Appeal against dismissal of assessee's appeal under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2009-2010.Detailed Analysis:1. Issue of Dismissal of Assessee's Appeal:The appeal was directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida, challenging the dismissal of the assessee's appeal under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O. made an addition on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as the genuineness of the gifts received by the assessee could not be explained. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied separately by the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the Finance Act, 2016 under Chapter-X provided the 'Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016,' which did not supersede the provisions of the Income Tax Act under section 251(1)(a) under Chapter-XX. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had approached the Pr. CIT, Noida for availing the benefits of the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, and a certificate was issued certifying that the assessee had paid a portion of the penalty imposed by the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the appeal was decided with the presumption that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal as per the Scheme, even though no specific request for withdrawal was made by the assessee.2. Interpretation of Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016:The Counsel for the Assessee argued that the provisions of the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, should supersede the I.T. Act as provided under the Scheme's rules. The Counsel referred to Rule 203(2) of the Scheme, which stated that upon declaration of tax arrear, appeals pending before the CIT(A) shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. The Counsel contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal on its merits. The Ld. CIT(A) acknowledged that the Scheme would supersede the provisions of the Income Tax Act upon filing the declaration accepted by the Designated Authority, leading to the deeming withdrawal of appeals. However, these arguments were not presented before the Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee.3. Decision and Remand by ITAT:After considering the contentions of both parties, the ITAT found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not have the benefit of the submissions regarding the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, as they were not raised before him by the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed a re-decision of the appeal, instructing the assessee to cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) for the finalization of the matter. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide sufficient opportunity for both the assessee and the A.O. to be heard. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.In conclusion, the ITAT remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration in light of the submissions regarding the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, which were not previously presented, emphasizing the importance of providing all relevant information during the appeal process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
