9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1343 - AT - Income TaxSettlement of disputed tax arrears under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 - assessee did not finally pursue the remedy under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, though the competent authority had issued Form No. 3 - AR pointed out that the order of the CIT( A) is wholly unsustainable, in as much as the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by treating the same as withdrawn by the appellant , whereas no such fact-situation persisted before the CIT( A) - As argued since the taxes were not paid as per the determination made by the PCIT in Form No. 3, the mandatory condition of Section 5 (2 ) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 remained uncomplied and therefore, in such a situation, the CIT( A) grossly erred in treating the appeal pending before him as withdrawn by the appellant . HELD THAT - As DR has not contested any of the factual assertions made by the Ld. AR, and contended that the CIT( A) has referred to Form Nos. 1 , 2 , 3 issued under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 which were appearing in ITBA system, and therefore, he has dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, though he conceded that Form Nos. 4 5 were not available on the ITBA system. Be that as it may, according to the Ld. DR the merits of the issue can be examined only at the level of the ld. CIT( A) and pleaded for restoring of the matter to ld. CIT( A) for adjudication for afresh. Keeping in view, the facts narrated above and the arguments of both the parties, the matter is being restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication denovo - Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues Involved:
Appeal against order of Ld.NFAC/CIT(A), New Delhi dated 21.11.2023 - Similar issues in multiple appeals heard together. Analysis: 1. Issue 1 - CIT(A) Dismissal of Appeal: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on the belief that the assessee opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. However, the appellant argued that the appeal was wrongly dismissed as withdrawn, as the taxes were not paid as per the determination made by the PCIT in Form No. 3. The mandatory condition of Section 5(2) of the Act remained uncomplied with. The Ld. DR did not contest these assertions, acknowledging the absence of Form Nos. 4 & 5 in the ITBA system. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 2. Issue 2 - Disallowance under Section 40A(3): The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of Rs. 1,42,70,543 made by the AO under section 40A(3) of the Act. The appellant argued that the cash payment was made due to exceptional circumstances of flight cancellation/delay and did not exceed the daily threshold limit per passenger. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate these points, leading to the disallowance. 3. Issue 3 - Treatment of Supplier Credits as Revenue Receipt: The CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO in treating the sum received from various suppliers of aircraft parts as a revenue receipt liable to tax. The appellant contended that this treatment was erroneous, but the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. 4. Issue 4 - Disallowance of Deductions: The CIT(A) disallowed deductions related to supplementary lease rent, replacement of seats of aircraft, and depreciation on capital expenditure. The appellant argued against these disallowances, stating that the CIT(A) and AO erred in their assessments. The matter was not resolved in favor of the appellant. 5. Issue 5 - Additional Grounds and TDS Credit: The CIT(A) did not admit additional grounds of appeal and did not allow a deduction under section 43B for Service Tax actually paid. The appellant raised these issues, but the CIT(A) did not adjudicate upon them. 6. Issue 6 - Interest Levy under Section 234B: The appellant challenged the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act as bad in law. The CIT(A) did not rule in favor of the appellant on this issue. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes, highlighting the need for a fresh adjudication by the CIT(A) on various contentious issues raised by the appellant.
|
