2021 (4) TMI 126 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer - as assessee submits that the assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and orders were passed on 30.12.2020 in Form No.3. - HELD THAT - It is not out of place to make a mention that an identical issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, in the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain HUF 2020 (12) TMI 740 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and the issue has been answered in favour of the Revenue. In the light of the subsequent development that the respondent/assessee opted to avail the benefit of the said scheme, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision 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 appropriate Division Bench for orders.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed by Revenue challenging order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment year 2014-15.
2. Substantial questions of law raised by Revenue regarding Tribunal's decision.
3. Arguments presented by counsels for both parties.
4. Mention of similar case and decision by Division Bench.
5. Liberty granted to assessee to restore appeal if decision on declaration under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not in their favor.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2014-15. The Revenue raised substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's decision. The first issue raised was whether the Tribunal was right in setting aside the Assessing Officer's order for reexamination without any new material warranting a remand. The second issue questioned the Tribunal's decision to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer, shifting the burden to the Revenue to establish the role of the assessee in promoting the company. The third issue challenged the Tribunal's finding as perverse, contrary to the principle of burden of proof. Both parties presented their arguments, with the counsel for the assessee mentioning the filing of a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. A similar case was cited where the issue was decided in favor of the Revenue. However, considering the assessee's decision to avail the scheme benefit, the assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the final decision on the declaration is not favorable. The judgment concluded by disposing of the tax case appeal with no costs, providing the mentioned liberty to the assessee for appeal restoration.