The petitioner filed an appeal before the CIT(A) along with condonation of delay . When the appeal was pending the consonance with provisions of Section 3 read with Section 4(1) of 2020 Act, Assessee, filed Form nos.1 and 2. Assessee’s request for processing of forms filed under 2020 Act was rejected . On writ allowing the petition the Court held an appeal would be pending in context of Section 2 (1) (a) of 2020 Act when it is first filed till its disposal. Section 2(1)(a) of 2020 Act does not stipulate that appeal should be admitted before specified date, it only adverts to its pendency. When Forms 1 and 2 were filed by Assessee, Revenue no.3/CIT(A) was seized of appeal, which included, a plea for condonation of delay. Therefore, order of rejection is bad in law. (AY. 2011 -12 )
Shyam Sunder Sethi v. PCIT (2021) 200 DTR 49/ 319 CTR 652 (Delhi) (HC)
The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
S. 2(1)(a): Appellant – Pendency of appeal – Appeal was filed along with condonation of delay – Wrongly equated with admission of appeal with pendency – 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.- Order of rejection was held to be bad in law [ S. 3, 4(1) , Art , 226 ]