TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarificatory order in the manner it has been done. The clarification cannot add new qualifications beyond the provisions of the DTVSV Act, 2020 and that clarification can only operate within contours specified in the DTVSV Act, 2020. Question No.59 in the said circular deals with the situation where time limit for filing appeal has expired during the period from 1st April, 2019 to 31st January, 2020 and appeal having been admitted prior to 31st January, 2020. The petitioner has challenged said clarification on the ground that filing appeal with application for condonation of delay is within the control of petitioner but, its decision is not. In the present case, the assessment orders were served on petitioner on 12th January 2019. The period of limitation for filing appeal is 30 days, therefore appeal ought to have been filed prior to 11th February, 2019. The said date 11th February, 2019 is prior to the period prescribed under Ques. No.59, being period from 1st April, 2019 to 31st January, 2020. These facts would raise a doubt about applicability of the circular dated 4th December, 2020 to the case of the petitioner. In any case, having found action of rejection of declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of issue of this circular, and appeal is admitted by the appellate authority before the date of filing of the declaration, such appeal will be deemed to be pending as on 31st January, 2020. Thus, what is clarified in the aforesaid circular is that, where the appeal is filed between the period of 1st April 2019 to 31st January 2020, along-with application for condonation of delay, the appeal has to be admitted by the appellate Authority prior to 31st January 2020. 5. The petitioner has come up with a case that on 12 th January, 2019, assessment orders for the years 2011-12 to 2015-16 and 2017-18 (for five years) were served on the petitioner. On 7th April, 2019, the petitioner filed belated appeals against the said orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-III) ( CITA for the sake of brevity) in Nagpur, along-with application for condonation of delay, as the appeals were late by 84 days. The applications for condonation of delay came to be rejected by the CITA vide orders dated 28th December, 2020. The said orders were challenged by the petitioner before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur ( ITAT for the sake of brevity). The Appellate Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ventakeshwara Associates v. Income Tax Officer-ITO Ward 7(3), Pune and others). Similar such question arose in the said petition. The relevant findings appear in paras 4 and 6 of the order, which read as under: 4. The issue at hand revolves around Section 2(1)(a)(i) as quoted above i.e., if the appeal before the appellate forum, CIT(A) in this case, is pending before the specified date i.e. 31st January 2020, then the applicant would be an eligible appellant. Therefore, the moot question to be answered is whether the delay in filing of the appeal by Petitioner was condoned or not. 6. In view of the department s own stand that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) has been condoned, there is nothing left for us to say further. It is a matter of first principles that the order of condonation of delay relates to the appeal and once delay has been condoned in the filing of appeal that means in this particular case appeal that means in this particular case appeal has been filed in time i.e. before the specified date i.e. 31st January 2020 as required under the DTVSV Act thereby making Petitioner an eligible appellant to avail the benefit of the DTVSV Scheme. Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on 7th April 2019, filed appeal along-with application for condonation of delay challenging said orders. The delay has been condoned vide order dated 24th February, 2021, meaning thereby that the appeals challenging assessment orders were pending on the specified date i.e.; 31st January 2020 in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Karan Ventakeshwara Associates v. Income Tax Officer (supra). The respondent No.3, therefore, could not have rejected the declaration filed by the petitioner. 15. The petitioner has also challenged the Circular No.21/2020 on the ground that the right conferred under Section 2(1)(a)(i) cannot be limited by a clarificatory order in the manner it has been done. The clarification cannot add new qualifications beyond the provisions of the DTVSV Act, 2020 and that clarification can only operate within contours specified in the DTVSV Act, 2020. Question No.59 in the said circular deals with the situation where time limit for filing appeal has expired during the period from 1st April, 2019 to 31st January, 2020 and appeal having been admitted prior to 31st January, 2020. The petitioner has challenged said clarification on the ground that filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
