YPO (Delhi Chapter) vs. ITO Ward-2(3) (Exemptions), New Delhi: Appeal Withdrawal under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme
Case Number: ITA 5047/DEL/2019
Appellant: YPO (Delhi Chapter), New Delhi
Respondent: ITO Ward-2(3) (Exemptions), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Result: Final Tribunal Order
Case Filed On: 2019-05-31
Date of Order: 2022-06-07
Pronounced On: 2022-06-07
Background
This appeal was filed by the assessee, YPO (Delhi Chapter), against the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), New Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issue in dispute was the CIT(E) assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, asserting that the order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
Grounds of Appeal
The appeal was based on the following grounds:
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(E) under Section 263 of the Act is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts.
The order passed by the learned CIT(E) assuming jurisdiction under section 263 is bad in law in the absence of twin conditions of the order passed by the A.O. being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
The learned CIT(E) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the issue raised by him in notice under Section 263 was before the A.O. and the exemption having been granted by the A.O. after due application of mind. As such, the jurisdiction on this issue under Section 263 cannot be assumed by him.
The learned CIT(E) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the appellant that the proceeding under Section 263 cannot be used for substituting the opinion of the A.O. by that of the learned CIT(E).
The learned CIT(E) has erred both on facts and in law in invoking the provisions of Explanation 2 to section 263(1) of the Act, despite the fact that the conditions prescribed therein are not satisfied in the present case, without specifying the reason for invoking the same.
The learned CIT(E) has erred both on facts and in law in setting aside the order of the A.O. in an arbitrary and mechanical manner without himself giving a finding as to the error and prejudice caused to the revenue by the assessment order.
The learned CIT(E) has erred both on facts and law in commenting on the objects of the assessee, on the basis of which registration under section 12A has been granted to the assessee, exceeding his jurisdiction.
Without prejudice to the above, tax having been deducted by the payers cannot be the reason for withdrawal of exemption under section 11.
The levy of service tax being a statutory levy, same cannot be the reason for denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act.
In any case, claim of payment made by the payers, as expenditure cannot be a reason for denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act.
The payments of professional fee having been made in India only, the provisions of section 11(1)(c) are not applicable on the same.
Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, the income of the assessee is not taxable on the basis of the doctrine of mutuality.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal.
Arguments by the Appellant
At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee, Sh. Binod Gupta, submitted that for the assessment year in question, the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appellant had filed Form 1 and Form 2 on 25 December 2020, and the department issued Form 3 on 30 January 2021. The entire disputed tax liability was paid, and Form 5 for full and final settlement was issued on 12 April 2021. Consequently, the appellant had requested permission to withdraw the appeal.
Response by the Revenue
Learned CIT DR, Sh. T. Kipgen, had no objection to the request made by the assessee.
Tribunal’s Observations and Decision
Upon reviewing the submissions, the tribunal noted that the appellant had already opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, settled the disputed tax liability, and received Form 5. Given the absence of any objection from the Revenue and in the interest of justice, the tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal of the appeal.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The order was pronounced in open court on 07.06.2022.
This case underscores the significance of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme in facilitating the settlement of tax disputes, providing a structured resolution mechanism, and reducing litigation.
Implications
The tribunal’s decision to permit the withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme reflects the effectiveness of the scheme in resolving tax disputes. It highlights the benefits of opting for such schemes, which offer a streamlined process for settling tax liabilities and reducing legal burdens.
Key Takeaways
The importance of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme in resolving tax disputes amicably and efficiently.
The necessity for appellants to comply with procedural requirements when opting for dispute resolution schemes.
The role of appellate authorities in facilitating the resolution of tax disputes through structured schemes.
Future Outlook
Taxpayers should remain informed about available dispute resolution schemes and consider opting for them to resolve tax disputes efficiently. Tax authorities and legal professionals must continue to promote and facilitate the use of such schemes to ensure a fair and effective tax dispute resolution process.
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.