9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61 (in short '1961 Act') and accordingly against "capital gains", the amount shown was 'Nil'. 4. The revenue, it appears, on 29.03.2018 issued a notice for reassessment under Section 148 of the Act, concerning the aforementioned assessment year. 4.1 In the reassessment proceedings, the exemption claimed by the petitioner under Section 54 of the 1961 Act was disallowed and the petitioner's income was recomputed. The income was, accordingly, assessed at Rs. 3,08,94,767/-. This order was passed on 26.12.2018. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal with respondent no. 3/CIT(A). The appeal along with the condonation of delay application was filed on 11.07.2019. Pertinently, the appeal was filed in the prescribed format which contained a provision for setting out the grounds for condonation of delay for cases where the appeal was not instituted within the stipulated timeframe. 6. On 01.02.2020, the Finance Bill, 2020 was introduced in the Parliament. Via the said Finance Bill, the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (in short 'Scheme') was introduced to resolve the pending disputes concerning income-tax payable by the assessees. The petitioner avers that it was, perhaps, in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion taken on the petitioner's request, which was, that the same had been "rejected". 12. It is on account of this circumstance that the petitioner moved respondent no.1, i.e., for being furnished the reasons for the decision. 12.1 Concededly, no reasons were given for rejecting the petitioner's request for being considered under the provisions of the 2020 Act. 13. Having met a wall, in a manner of speech, the petitioner approached this Court. The writ petition came up for hearing for the first time on 19.02.2021. 13.1 It appears that since the deadline for processing the petitioner's request was expiring, the bench, inter alia, observed as follows. The relevant part of the order dated 19.02.2021 is extracted hereafter: "3. The petition impugns the rejection of the application dated 12th June, 2020 of the petitioner under the Direct Taxes Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, on the ground that the appeal of the petitioner though pending consideration before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was without any application for condonation of delay and otherwise it was barred by time and thus cannot be considered as pending. 4. The counsel for the respondents, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Singh says that the appeal of the petitioner could only be considered as viable under the 2020 Act, if the application for condonation of delay was filed before the issuance of circular dated 04.12.2020 and the appeal had been admitted by respondent no.3/CIT(A) before the filing of forms 1 and 2. 16.2 It is Mr. Singh's contention, that it is only in such a circumstance that the appeal could be construed as pending as on 31.01.2020. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The dates and events which have been set out hereinabove, are not in dispute. What has emerged, though, from the record is the following: (i) That the petitioner filed an appeal with respondent no.3/CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2011-2012 on 11.07.2019. (ii) This appeal included a plea for condonation of delay which was filed by the petitioner in the prescribed format. (iii) Because the petitioner was seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, quite obviously, the limitation provided for instituting the appeal had expired. The limitation, even according to the petitioner, had expired on 03.02.2019. (iv) The plea for condonation of delay, as noticed ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with an application for condonation of delay, would such assessee (i.e., the taxpayer) be eligible for availing benefits available under the 2020 Act? 22. However, in response to this query, several facets have been alluded to, which are not found in the 2020 Act. For instance, the respondent states that if the limitation or the time limit for filing the appeal expires during the period 01.04.2019 and 31.01.2020 (both dates included) and the application for condonation is filed before the date of issuance of the said clarification, i.e., 04.12.2020, the appeal can be construed as pending on the specified date i.e. 31.01.2020, only if it is "admitted" by the appellate authority before the filing of the declaration in the form prescribed under the 2020 Act. 23. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, as noted, the appeal which included the condonation of delay application, was filed on 11.07.2019, that is, well before the specified date; the specified date under the 2020 Act being 31.01.2020. 23.1 We were not referred to any provision under the 2020 Act, which provided that limitation qua the subject appeal should be expired within the period spread out between 01.04.2019 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
