Ardent Info Systems (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT & Ors.

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 1979 TaxPub(DT) 0848 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1510 (Del-HC) IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT RAJIV SHAKDHER & TARA VITASTA GANJU JJ. Ardent Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal CIT and others W. P. (C) No. 5649 of 2021 21 April, 2023 Petitioner by Sumit Lalchandani with Vibhu Jain, Advocates, Respondents by Sanjay Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel, JUDGMENT *Rajiv Shakdher J.* C. M. Appl. No. 17597 of 2021 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W. P. (C) No. 5649 of 2021 This writ petition is directed against three rejection orders passed by respondent No. 1, which is the designated authority under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (in short, '2020 Act'). The three rejection orders which have been assailed are dated 31-1-2021, 25-3-2021 and 9-4-2021. The orders are almost identical in their width and scope. 4. However, as is evident on a bare perusal of the said orders, these orders came to be passed on account of declarations made by the petitioner on various dates. 4.1 Thus, in so far as the rejection order dated 31-1-2021 is concerned, a declaration in the prescribed forms i. e., form 1 and form 2 under the 2020 Act, was made on 21-11-2020. 4.2 Likewise, as regards the rejection order dated 25-3-2021 is concerned, the declaration was filed, as indicated above, on 31-1-2021. 4.3 Similarly, the third declaration was filed by the petitioner, once again, in the prescribed form on 25-3-2021, which was rejected on 9-4-2021. 5. The ground on which the petitioner's declarations were rejected was that on the specified date, i. e., 31-1-2020, its appeal was not pending. 6. To appreciate the issue at hand, which is : whether or not the appeal was pending either before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'Tribunal') or the first appellate authority, i. e., the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short, 'CIT(A)') the following broad facts are required to be noticed. 6.1. The petitioner had filed its return for the assessment year 2008-09 on 31-3-2009. 6.2 The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, '1961 Act'). 6.3 On 23-3-2015, a notice under section 148 of the 1961 Act was issued. 6.4 Consequentially, respondent No.2 passed an assessment order on 16-3-2016 under section 147,read with section 144 of the 1961 Act. Resultantly, the petitioner's income chargeable to tax was reassessed and pegged at Rs. 20,32,181. 6.5 Since the petitioner was dissatisfied with the outcome in the reassessment proceedings, it preferred an appeal, albeit, in physical form as against an appeal in digital mode on 28-4-2016. This appeal was lodged before respondent No. 3. 6.6 It appears that the petitioner, in line with the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 20 of 2016 dated 26-5-2016 ((2016) 384 ITR (St.) 179), filed an appeal with respondent No. 3 via online mode as well. This appeal was uploaded on 7-3-2017. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1510 (Del-HC)

IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT

RAJIV SHAKDHER & TARA VITASTA GANJU JJ.

Ardent Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal CIT and others

W. P. (C) No. 5649 of 2021

21 April, 2023

Petitioner by Sumit Lalchandani with Vibhu Jain, Advocates,

Respondents by Sanjay Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel,

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher J.

C. M. Appl. No. 17597 of 2021 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W. P. (C) No. 5649 of 2021

This writ petition is directed against three rejection orders passed by respondent No. 1, which is the designated authority under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (in short, '2020 Act').

The three rejection orders which have been assailed are dated 31-1-2021, 25-3-2021 and 9-4-2021. The orders are almost identical in their width and scope.

4. However, as is evident on a bare perusal of the said orders, these orders came to be passed on account of declarations made by the petitioner on various dates.

4.1 Thus, in so far as the rejection order dated 31-1-2021 is concerned, a declaration in the prescribed forms i. e., form 1 and form 2 under the 2020 Act, was made on 21-11-2020.

4.2 Likewise, as regards the rejection order dated 25-3-2021 is concerned, the declaration was filed, as indicated above, on 31-1-2021.

4.3 Similarly, the third declaration was filed by the petitioner, once again, in the prescribed form on 25-3-2021, which was rejected on 9-4-2021.

5. The ground on which the petitioner's declarations were rejected was that on the specified date, i. e., 31-1-2020, its appeal was not pending.

6. To appreciate the issue at hand, which is : whether or not the appeal was pending either before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'Tribunal') or the first appellate authority, i. e., the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short, 'CIT(A)') the following broad facts are required to be noticed.

6.1. The petitioner had filed its return for the assessment year 2008-09 on 31-3-2009.

6.2 The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, '1961 Act').

6.3 On 23-3-2015, a notice under section 148 of the 1961 Act was issued.

6.4 Consequentially, respondent No.2 passed an assessment order on 16-3-2016 under section 147,read with section 144 of the 1961 Act. Resultantly, the petitioner's income chargeable to tax was reassessed and pegged at Rs. 20,32,181.

6.5 Since the petitioner was dissatisfied with the outcome in the reassessment proceedings, it preferred an appeal, albeit, in physical form as against an appeal in digital mode on 28-4-2016. This appeal was lodged before respondent No. 3.

6.6 It appears that the petitioner, in line with the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 20 of 2016 dated 26-5-2016 ((2016) 384 ITR (St.) 179), filed an appeal with respondent No. 3 via online mode as well. This appeal was uploaded on 7-3-2017.