TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for A.Y. 2016-17, [appeal against which was pending before CIT(A)] for which assessee had already filed application under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 30.01.2021, which was accepted by the department (as Form 3 was also issued on). Appellant prays that revision of assessment order already settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (the scheme) is not in accordance with legislative intention of the scheme and thus order u/s 263 giving such direction deserves to be quashed. Without prejudice to above, and in the alternative: 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in passing order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, without providing adequate opportunity of b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal on or before 30.05.2021. However, the same was filed on 30.06.2021. It was submitted that the delay so happened in filing the present appeal was on account of the 2nd outburst of COVID-19 Pandemic and consequent lockdown announced by the State Government. It was accordingly submitted that due to lockdown, the assessee was prevented from filing the present appeal and the delay so happened was not deliberate. In support, the reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27.04.2021 wherein the period of limitation in filing of appeal, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended with effect from 14th March, 2021 till further orders....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was passed u/s 143(3) dated 31.12.2018. 6. Thereafter, the assessment records were called for and examined by the ld. Pr. CIT and he observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from 34 lenders and during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not fulfilled the requirements namely, identity of the person, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the payer and only PANs of 10 persons were filed during the course of assessment proceedings. The ld. Pr. CIT accordingly observed that the AO has not verified the issue of unsecured loans taken by the assessee during the year and has thus not deliberated on the issue of unsecured loans while completing the assessment and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention of the scheme and therefore, consequent order passed u/s 263 deserves to be quashed. 8. Per contra, the ld. PCIT/DR taken us through the direct taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Act of 2020 and submitted that this Act seek to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and our reference was drawn to the definition of the "appellant", "disputed income", "disputed tax", "tax arrears" as provided in section 2 of the said Act. Further, our reference was drawn to sub-section (3) of Section 5 which talks about the determination of an amount payable under the Act which shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein and no matter covered by such orders shall be reopened in any other pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grounds so taken by the assessee deserves to be dismissed. 9. In his rejoinder, the ld. A/R reiterated his earlier contentions that once the assessment order has been made subject matter of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the ld. Pr.CIT cannot exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and at most, where the law permits, the AO could have exercised jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act and which has not happened in the present case. 10. In Ground No. 2, the assessee has challenged the passing of the impugned order u/s 263 by the Pr. PCIT without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. It was submitted by the ld A/R that the first notice u/s 263 was issued only on 26.03.2021 fixing the date of hearing for 29th of March, 2021 and thereafter, procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to respond by 29.03.2021, and the order was thereafter pronounced on 31.03.2021. We understand that being a limitation period, the ld PCIT could not have granted more time but the question is what stopped the ld PCIT to atleast initiate the proceedings earlier and why the proceedings were initiated at the fag end of the limitation period. One possible reason could be the ongoing covid pandemic by virtue of which all activities were at standstill and offices were closed including that of the Revenue authorities. At the same time, the Revenue authorities cannot be oblivious of the orders pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court extending the limitation period and also the fact that the CBDT has also came out with directions extending the limit....