[ad_1]
Anup Kumar Mittal v. Commissioner of Revenue TaxIn the Excessive Courtroom of DelhiWP(C) 4920/2021 and CM Appl. 15113/2021Before Justice Manmohan and Justice M.P. Singh AroraDecided on September 02, 2022
Relevancy of the Case: Is an assessee liable for the portal’s failure to register and add his attraction?
Statutes and Provisions Concerned
The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Part 2(1)(a))
Related Details of the Case
The petitioner had filed an attraction by the digital mode; nonetheless, it was not registered and uploaded.
As per the bodily document of the attraction, it’s nonetheless pending.
Opinion of the Bench
The petitioner had filed the digital attraction; there is no such thing as a default on his half. The authorities can not blame the petitioner for the portal’s failure to register and add the attraction.
It’s settled regulation that an assessee can’t be penalised or endure hostile penalties for default on the a part of the Income.
Within the case of Shyam Sunder Sethi v. CIT, the court docket held that “an attraction can be ‘pending’ within the context of Part 2(1)(a) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 when it’s first filed until its disposal.
Closing Resolution
The court docket put aside the Commissioner’s order and directed to make sure that the petitioner’s attraction is uploaded and registered.
Aditi Mangesh Sawant, an undergraduate scholar at NMIMS Kirit P Mehta Faculty of Regulation, Mumbai, ready this case abstract throughout her internship with The Cyber Weblog India in January/February 2024.
[ad_2]
Source link
