2023 (4) TMI 1295 - HC - Income Tax

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas benefit - ground on which the petitioner s declarations as rejected was that on the specified date i.e. 31.01.2020 its appeal was not pending - distinction as to the mode in which appeal is preferred - whether or not the appeal was pending either before the Tribunal or CIT(A)? - Commissioner (Appeals) passed two separate orders as the first order concerned the appeal filed by the assessee in physical mode which was dismissed on the ground that an appeal filed in physical form was not viable i. e. could not be entertained. The second order the appeal preferred in digital mode. This order considered the assessee s case on the merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) however thereby sustained the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal who set aside the order passed in the appeal preferred by the assessee in physical form and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) and assessee thus filled miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) what it thought was an error apparent on record which was dismissed by Tribunal. A fresh appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal with an application for condonation of delay which was admitted by tribunal. While the appeal was pending the Finance Act 2020 received the assent of the President of India on March 17 2020. HELD THAT - There are two ways of looking at the matter. Firstly the appeal preferred in physical form was pending. The provisions of the 2020 Act do not make any distinction as to the mode in which appeal is preferred as long as it is pending. Therefore if we were to take this view according to us respondent no.1 could not have passed the orders of rejection as the appeal lodged by the petitioner in physical form had in a sense resurfaced with the Tribunal passing an order of remand on 01.04.2019. The order passed by respondent no.3 on merits was rendered otiose in view of the order of remand passed by the appellate authority i.e. the Tribunal. Appeal was pending since petitioner had attempted a course correction and filed a fresh appeal against the order on merits dated 06.07.2018 - Given the circumstances obtaining in the matter there is weight in submission that once the Tribunal condoned the delay on 18.12.2020 the appeal would be construed as having been instituted on the date it ought to have been lodged. Fresh appeal was filed before the 2020 Act had received the assent of the President i.e. on 17.03.2020. Therefore the bona fides of the petitioner clearly cannot be doubted. But as indicated hereinabove this line of discussion need not be taken further in view of what we have stated hereinabove which is that the order passed by the Tribunal on 01.04.2019 gave a fresh lease of life to the appeal which had been preferred by the petitioner in physical mode. Purpose of this direction was that respondent no.3 should have passed an order on merits and ought not to have dismissed the appeal only on the ground that it had not been filed in the digital mode. Tribunal s order only complicated the matter by refusing to correct the inadvertent error which was committed by the petitioner. Should the petitioner suffer on account of an obvious and inadvertent mistake made by the counsel for the petitioner? - It is often said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. To our minds it is also equally well-settled that not everyone knows the law. See Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1978 (12) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT . The petitioner would not have known that a viable appeal was one which was instituted in digital mode. Undoubtedly the petitioner suffered on account of its lawyer s failing. Therefore for the aforesaid reasons we are inclined to hold that the petitioner s appeal was pending on the specified date i.e. 31.01.2020. Accordingly the impugned orders passed by respondent no.1 are set aside. As the assessee s appeal was pending on the specified date i. e. January 31 2020. The rejection of the declaration was not valid.

Summary

Issues involved:
The writ petition challenges rejection orders under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The main issue is whether the petitioner's appeal was pending before the statutory authority under the Income Tax Act on the specified date.

Details of the judgment:

Rejection Orders:
The writ petition contests three rejection orders dated 31.01.2021, 25.03.2021, and 09.04.2021 passed by the designated authority under the 2020 Act. These rejections were based on the ground that the appeal was not pending on 31.01.2020.

Background of the Case:
The petitioner filed its return for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 31.03.2009, which led to a reassessment in 2016. Subsequently, appeals were made in physical and digital modes, resulting in conflicting orders by the authority.

Tribunal's Intervention:
The Tribunal's remand order on 01.04.2019 revived the physical mode appeal, creating a situation where the order on merits remained intact. The petitioner then filed a fresh appeal in 2020 after the Finance Act received assent.

Court's Analysis:
The Court considered whether the appeal was pending on the specified date, emphasizing the significance of the Tribunal's remand order and the subsequent appeal filed by the petitioner.

Decision:
The Court held that the appeal was indeed pending on 31.01.2020, contrary to the rejection orders. It set aside the impugned orders and directed the authority to proceed with the petitioner's declarations under the 2020 Act.

Separate Judgment by Judges:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.