Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1427 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTBenefit of settlement scheme as per Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 - condonation of delay - whether a right to avail the benefit of settlement scheme is a valuable or vested right? - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the scheme has been brought about bearing in mind various factors. There is no compulsion on the assessee to avail the benefit of the scheme as it is purely optional. Therefore, an assessee may choose or may not choose to avail the benefit of the scheme. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating that she was advised to avail the benefit of scheme in the event the revenue prefers an appeal before this Court against the decision of the Tribunal which was in favour of the assessee. We cannot examine the case on abstract propositions or what would have been the intention of the assessee. On careful reading of all the provisions of Act 3 of 2020, it is clear that the benefit provided is optional, an assessee exercising such option is not automatically entitled to the benefit under the scheme and the authority is empowered to consider and refuse to entertain the application for reasons to be assigned. Section 9 has also enumerated the cases where the Act will not apply. Thus, on a complete reading of Act 3 of 2020 it is clear that the scheme propounded therein not only is optional but can never construed to be a vested or a valuable right. Therefore, on the assessee contemplating of going under the scheme cannot be said to have suffered prejudice only because the revenue preferred the appeal belatedly as we find the scheme does not confer any vested right on the assessee. Assessee placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in the case of Nitu Agarwal [2021 (12) TMI 1385 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] the revenue had not placed any submission as to the effect of the provisions of Act 3 of 2020 nor there was any dispute raised on the submission of the assessee that they wanted to avail the benefit of the scheme. In any event it is an order passed in a miscellaneous application refusing to exercise discretion and the same cannot be treated as precedent as each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances contained therein. Upon going through the affidavits filed in support of the applications and bearing in mind the facts and circumstances set out above, we are satisfied that the revenue has shown sufficient cause for not being able to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation. We are of the considered view that cause of justice would be served if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeals are heard on merits so that the Court can consider as to whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration.
|