TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condoned and even if it was allegedly irregular or incompetent. In the instant case therefore also, the Respondent could not have rejected the Declaration Form of the Petitioner filed under the said Act merely on the ground that the Appeal was not valid or competent, as the delay occurred in filing the Appeal was not condoned by the Appellate Authority. In the opinion of the Court, the Respondent had to only take into consideration, as to whether, the Petitioner had filed an Appeal, and the same was pending on the specified date i.e. 31.1.2020. It was not for the Respondent to decide, as to whether, such Appeal was irregular or incompetent or invalid in the eye of law. In view of the above, the impugned communication dated 26.04.2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 27.12.2011 framed the assessment for the said period. The petitioner assailed the said order before the CIT (Appeals) by filing an Appeal alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay. Thereafter, the Appeal was fixed from time to time, and was lastly fixed on 05.02.2016. It is further case of the Petitioner that the said Act having come into force, for settling the disputes, the Petitioner being desirous of settling the dispute involved in the Appeal pending on the specified date i.e. 31.1.2020, had decided to opt for availing the benefit under the said Act, and accordingly, had filed the Declaration in the prescribed Form Nos. 1 and 2 on 02.01.2021 under the said Act. However, it was displayed on the E-filing portal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal, or by the High Court in a writ petition, on or before the specified date, and the time for filing any appeal or special leave petition against such order by that person has not expired as on that date; (iii) a person who has filed his objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and the Dispute Resolution Panel has not issued any direction on or before the specified date; (iv) a person in whose case the Dispute Resolution Panel has issued direction under sub-section (5) of section 144C of the Income-tax Act and the Assessing Officer has not passed any order under subsection (13) of that section on or before the specified date; (v) a person who has file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there is no practice of registering an application for condonation of delay separately at the office of the CIT (Appeals), and the same is heard along with the Appeal itself. Even in the prescribed Form No.35, there was Column No. 15, where the Petitioner Appellant was required to mention about the number of days of delay occurred in filing the Appeal. It has also emerged from the record of the Petition that the Appellate Authority itself had issued various notices to the Petitioner with regard to the hearing of the said Appeal. Now, the Declaration made by the Petitioner under the said Act has been rejected as shown in the portal, on the following grounds: In your case, the AO has reported that As per form-35 the demand notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also the other earlier decisions, and observed as under: 13. In our view, the Scheme was in substance a recovery scheme though it was nomenclatured as a litigation settlement scheme and was not similar to the earlier Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. As stated above, the said Scheme was a complete Code by itself. Its object was to put an end to all pending matters in the form of appeals, reference, revisions and writ petitions under the IT Act/WT Act. Keeping in mind the above object, we have to examine section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme, which was different from appeals under section 246, revisions under section 264, appeals under section 260A etc. of the IT Act and similar provisions under the W.T. Act. Under the I.T. Act, there is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be incompetent, e.g., when it is held to be barred by limitation. From the mere fact that such an appeal is held to be unmaintainable on any ground whatsoever, it does not follow that there was no appeal pending before the Court. 17. To the same effect is the law laid down by the judgment of this Court in the case of Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar Others reported in (2004) 5 SCC 1, in which it has been held that an appeal does not cease to be an appeal though irregular and incompetent. 11. In view of the aforestated legal position, there remains no shadow of doubt that appeal could be said to be pending, even if the delay occurred in filing the same was not condoned and even if it was allegedly irreg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
