9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot received on account of the same facts narrated in earlier para. On online verification of the " Case Status", it was found that the appeal has been dismissed on account of non-representation. 4. On being requested, the Deputy Registrar, ITAT Ahmedabad has provided the copy of order of Hon'ble ITAT on 19/08/2019. 5. On receipt of the copy of order of Hon'ble ITAT, the assessee has filed MA application on 27/12/2019 which is very well within the limitation period of six months from the date of receipt of order. 6. As per the noting of Registry, there is a delay of 650 days because the same has been computed with reference to the date of passing of order by the Hon'ble ITAT. 7. Our respectful submission is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] has dismissed the rectification application on the ground that the said application has been preferred beyond the date of six months from the date of passing original order. *** **** **** *** *** **** **** *** *** **** **** *** 12. The assessee-applicant further rely on Hon'ble Mumbai Bench MA No. 140/Murn/2012 in case of Pawan Kumar Jain v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax -24(2) wherein Hon'ble Mumbai Bench considered limitation period from the date of receipt of order and allowed the MA filed after a gap of six years. The finding recorded by Hon'ble Bench in para 18 of its order reads as under: "18. Thus, looking to the facts of the case, we hold that the date of order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed ? 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the record carefully. 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. Further, the 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
