9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 Act. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, as noted, the appeal which included the condonation of delay application, was filed on 11.07.2019, that is, well before the specified date; the specified date under the 2020 Act being 31.01.2020. We were not referred to any provision under the 2020 Act, which provided that limitation qua the subject appeal should be expired within the period spread out between 01.04.2019 and 31.01.2020 (both dates included) and it ought to have been admitted for it to be considered as pending under the 2020 Act. Section 2(1)(a) of the 2020 Act does not stipulate that the appeal should be admitted before the specified date, it only adverts to its pendency. Respondent no.1 seems to have, in our view, wrongly equated admission of the appeal with pendency. In our view, as noted above, the appeal would be pending as soon as it is filed and up until such time it is adjudicated upon and a decision is taken qua the same. We could have appreciated the stand of the respondents if a plea made for condonation of delay would have been rejected by respondent no.3/CIT(A) before the petitioner had filed Forms 1 and 2. If that situation obtained, the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessees. The petitioner avers that it was, perhaps, in this background that he was sent an intimation dated 03.03.2020 by respondent no. 2 whereby he was informed that he could avail of the benefits under the 2020 Act. 7. On 17.03.2020, the 2020 Act received the assent of the President of India. Given the aforementioned development, the petitioner took the requisite steps under the 2020 Act to resolve his pending disputes with the revenue and to avail the benefits available thereunder. 7.1 Consequently, in consonance with the provisions of Section 3 read with Section 4(1) of the 2020 Act, the petitioner, on 12.06.2020, filed Form nos.1 and 2. 7.2 The forms having been filed, the petitioner followed it with a request, made to respondent no.1 on 21.08.2020, that the said forms be processed under the 2020 Act. Since there was no movement in the matter, the petitioner approached the Grievance Committee on 18.11.2020. 8. On 14.12.2020, the petitioner received a letter from respondent no.2 which inter alia conveyed the following. This is in reference to your VSVS form filed for A.Y. 2011-12. In this regard, you are requested to file condonation letter from CIT (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by time and thus cannot be considered as pending. 4. The counsel for the respondents, appearing on advance notice, fairly states that though there is no such provision in the Act but the application has been rejected in view of FAQs issued. He also states that no reason has been given for the rejection; time is sought to obtain instructions. 5. Issue notice. 6. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondents. 7. Reply/counter affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date. 8. List on 3rd March, 2021. 9. If the petition is allowed, the application filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to have been filed on the date on which it was filed and be treated as within time. [Emphasis is ours] 14. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, has assailed the rejection of the petitioner s request to process Form nos.1 and 2 inter alia on the ground that respondent no.1 has stepped outside of the periphery drawn for him under the provisions of the 2020 Act. Mr. Lalchandani says that the Act required, at the stage at which the petitioner s request was poised, the fulfilment of two ingredients for the petitioner's request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired. The limitation, even according to the petitioner, had expired on 03.02.2019. (iv) The plea for condonation of delay, as noticed above, was incorporated in the appeal and was preferred before issuance of the circular dated 04.12.2020. (v) Respondent no.3/CIT(A) as on the date of rejection, i.e., 12.06.2020 had not dealt with the plea for condonation. 18. Therefore, what we are required to delve into is: whether the response given to FAQ 59 circumscribed the power of the designated authority to process forms 1 and 2 filed by the petitioner. It would be relevant in this context to advert to Section 2 (1) a (i) and Section 2 (1) a (n) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter: 2. (1) (a) (i) a person in whose case an appeal or a writ petition or special leave petition has been filed either by him or by the income-tax authority or by both, before an appellate forum and such appeal or petition is pending as on the specified date; 2. (1) (a) (n) specified date means the 31st day of January, 2020 19. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions and the attendant provisions of the Act would show that the request should have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We were not referred to any provision under the 2020 Act, which provided that limitation qua the subject appeal should be expired within the period spread out between 01.04.2019 and 31.01.2020 (both dates included) and it ought to have been admitted for it to be considered as pending under the 2020 Act. 24. The fact that the appeal included a plea of condonation of delay is not in dispute. Therefore, the appeal could not have been admitted unless the delay was condoned. But that by itself does not efface the fact that the appeal was pending. An appeal would be pending in the context of Section 2 (1) (a) of the 2020 Act when it is first filed till its disposal 1 . Section 2(1)(a) of the 2020 Act does not stipulate that the appeal should be admitted before the specified date, it only adverts to its pendency. Respondent no.1 seems to have, in our view, wrongly equated admission of the appeal with pendency. In our view, as noted above, the appeal would be pending as soon as it is filed and up until such time it is adjudicated upon and a decision is taken qua the same. We could have appreciated the stand of the respondents if a plea made for condonation of delay would have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
