2020 (12) TMI 1212 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Misc. Application filed by the assessee is late by 650 days - assessee wants to settle the issue under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme - HELD THAT - The reasons for delay in filing present MA cannot be simply brushed aside, as the same are based on the facts narrated by the assessee and supported by an affidavit which deserve reasonable and lenient consideration in view of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule 1963. CBDT also explained vide Circular dated 4.12.2020 (supra) that MA pending as on 31st January, 2020 would also be covered under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. In view of this, and coupled with the fact that the assessee has filed letter dated 4.12.2020 stating therein that the assessee wants to settle the issue under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the willingness of the assessee-company to avail the benefit of the scheme, which claim are supported by form No.1 and 2 (copies of which placed on record), we condone the delay in filing the MA., and allow the assessee for exercising option to avail benefit under VSV scheme. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the MA of the assessee is allowed and Registry is directed to list the appeal for hearing on 4th February, 2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application seeking to recall orders of the Tribunal dated 18.09.2017.
2. Interpretation of the limitation period for filing a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Consideration of the Vivad se Vishwas scheme in relation to the pending Miscellaneous Application.

Issue 1: Delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application:
The assessee sought to recall orders of the Tribunal dated 18.09.2017, which were dismissed ex parte for want of prosecution. The application was filed 650 days late, with the assessee explaining the delay due to non-receipt of hearing notices as the company had ceased operations. The delay was attributed to the interpretation of Section 254(2) regarding the commencement of the limitation period for rectification applications. The Registry noted the delay but the Tribunal, considering the reasons provided and the legal precedents, condoned the delay and allowed the Miscellaneous Application to be heard on merit.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the limitation period under Section 254(2):
The legal issue raised was whether the limitation period of six months for filing a rectification application should commence from the date of the order sought to be rectified or from the date of receipt of the order by the assessee. Reference was made to a similar case before the Gujarat High Court and a Mumbai Bench decision, where the date of order was construed to mean the date of receipt or communication to either party. The Tribunal considered these interpretations and the specific circumstances of the case to condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application.

Issue 3: Consideration of the Vivad se Vishwas scheme:
The assessee expressed interest in availing benefits under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and had filed the necessary forms. The Tribunal, after considering the reasons for delay, the assessee's willingness to settle under the scheme, and a CBDT circular, decided to condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to exercise the option to avail benefits under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and directed the Registry to list the appeal for hearing accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application, the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 254(2), and the consideration of the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the facts, legal provisions, and the assessee's intentions, decided to allow the Miscellaneous Application and granted the assessee the opportunity to avail benefits under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.