9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 910 - HC - Income TaxBenefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (' VVS Scheme') - assessee has already filed the declaration under Section 4 of the Act on 14.10.2020 - HELD THAT - The assessee has already availed the benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this appeal pending. At the same time, safeguarding the interest of the assessee in the event the order to be passed by the Department under the Act is not in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of on the ground that the assessee has already filed a declaration and the Department shall process the application at the earliest in accordance with the said Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the Division Bench for orders.
Issues:
1. Setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer for re-examination by the Tribunal. 2. Remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer regarding the role of the Assessee in promoting the Company. 3. Perverseness of the Tribunal's finding and the burden of proof. Issue 1: Setting Aside Order for Re-examination The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, questioning the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Assessing Officer's order for re-examination. The Tribunal's action was challenged on the grounds that the Assessing Officer had already examined the matter while passing the assessment order. The Substantial Question of Law raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order for re-examination despite the Assessing Officer's prior examination. Issue 2: Remitting the Issue to Assessing Officer Another significant issue raised in the appeal was the Tribunal's decision to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer concerning the Assessee's role in promoting the Company. The Tribunal referred to specific cases and directed the Assessing Officer to bring on record the Assessee's involvement in promoting the Company, the relationship with the promoters, and the role in inflating prices. This action was questioned, arguing that the Assessing Officer and SEBI had already conducted this exercise. The Substantial Question of Law in this regard was whether the Tribunal's decision to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer was appropriate. Issue 3: Perverseness of Tribunal's Finding The third issue revolved around the perverseness of the Tribunal's finding, especially in light of the established principle that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a fact. The appeal contended that the Tribunal's decision was contrary to this time-tested principle, emphasizing that the burden shifts to the department only after the party asserting a fact has discharged the initial burden. The Substantial Question of Law raised here was whether the Tribunal's finding was indeed perverse in this context. In a comprehensive analysis, the High Court considered the appeal in light of subsequent developments related to the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Act provided a mechanism for resolving tax disputes, allowing declarants to end pending tax disputes at various levels. The Court noted that the Assessee had already filed a declaration under the Act, rendering the appeal potentially moot. Consequently, the Court disposed of the Tax Case Appeal, highlighting that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending since the Assessee had availed the benefits under the Act. However, the Court ensured that the Assessee's interests were safeguarded in case the Department's decision under the Act was not favorable. The Assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if needed, without requiring an application for condonation of delay. The Court's decision to dispose of the appeal in light of the Assessee's declaration under the Act reflected a practical approach to the evolving legal landscape.
|
