TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [in short, "2020 Act"]. 3. The three rejection orders which have been assailed are dated 31.01.2021, 25.03.2021 and 09.04.2021. The orders are almost identical in their width and scope. 4. However, as is evident on a bare perusal of the said orders, these orders came to be passed on account of declarations made by the petitioner on various dates. 4.1 Thus, insofar as the rejection order dated 31.01.2021 is concerned, a declaration in the prescribed form i.e., Form-1 and Form-2 under the 2020 Act, was made on 21.11.2020. 4.2 Likewise, as regards the rejection order dated 25.03.2021 is concerned, the declaration was filed, as indicated above, on 31.01.2021. 4.3 Similarly, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... This appeal was uploaded on 07.06.2017. 6.7 Respondent no.3, on 06.07.2018, passed two separate orders. The first order concerned the appeal filed by the petitioner in physical mode, (i.e., Appeal No.79/16-17). This appeal was dismissed on the ground that an appeal filed in physical form was not viable i.e., could not be entertained. 6.8. The second order which was passed by respondent no.3 concerned the appeal (i.e., Appeal No.39/17-18), which had been preferred digital mode. This order considered the petitioner's case on merits. Respondent no.3, however, disagreed with the petitioner, and thereby sustained the reassessment order dated 16.03.2016 passed by respondent no.2. 7. As would be evident, there were two orders available ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the order that respondent no.3 had passed in the appeal which had been preferred in physical form- which did not deal with the merits of the petitioner's case. 9.2 For whatever reasons, the Tribunal, took a simplistic view of the matter and held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and consequently, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner's MA via order dated 30.08.2019. 10 It is important to note that what the Tribunal, perhaps, failed to focus on was the impact of its order whereby the matter had been remanded to respondent no.3. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the direction for remand order had created an incongruous situation, inasmuch as the order, on merits, passed by respondent no.3, remained undistur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....about the revival of the petitioner's appeal [preferred in physical form]- which had been rejected by respondent no.3 via order dated 06.07.2018. 17. Although the petitioner had attempted to bring to the notice of the Tribunal that while filing the appeal, it had, inadvertently, not placed on record the second order of even date i.e., 06.07.2018, passed by respondent no.3, albeit, on merits, it refused to entertain the application and dismissed the same via order dated 30.08.2019. 18. The facts, as set forth hereinabove, also reveal that a fresh appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal on 10.02.2020 along with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal, via the detailed order dated 18.12.2020, condoned the del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view, on the MA filed by the petitioner. 22.1 In our opinion, had the Tribunal carefully perused the application filed by the petitioner, it would have realised that its remand order dated 01.04.2019 infused the proceedings with internal contradictions, as respondent no.3's order on merits dismissing the appeal remained intact. 23. All that the Tribunal's order dated 01.04.2019 achieved was to revive the petitioner's appeal preferred in physical mode which had been rejected by respondent no.3 via order dated 06.07.2018. Insofar as the order on merits was concerned, which is also dated 06.07.2018, since, at the relevant point in time i.e., on 01.04.2019, no appeal was pending before the Tribunal, no orders were passed. 24. Thus, there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nabove, which is that the order passed by the Tribunal, on 01.04.2019, gave a fresh lease of life to the appeal which had been preferred by the petitioner in physical mode. 24.7 Perhaps, the purpose of this direction was that respondent no.3 should have passed an order on merits and ought not to have dismissed the appeal only on the ground that it had not been filed in the digital mode. 25. As indicated above, the Tribunal's order dated 30.08.2019 only complicated the matter by refusing to correct the inadvertent error which was committed by the petitioner. 26. Therefore, the question that begs an answer is: should the petitioner suffer on account of an obvious and inadvertent mistake made by the counsel for the petitioner? 27. ....