9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 707 - HC - Income TaxVivad Se Vishwas Scheme - Application filed under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme has been rejected on the basis that the revision petition filed - HELD THAT - Income Tax Officer has no authority or power under the DTVSV Act to dispose of the revision application filed by petitioner u/s 264 of the Act. Petitioner had filed the revision application u/s 264 with a request for condonation of delay and that revision application has not been rejected and was still pending on the date petitioner filed the declaration under the DTVSV Act. DTVSV Act only requires that the application under Section 264 must be pending on the specified date. Mr. Walve submitted that time limit for disposal of the revision petition expired long before the specified date and that before filing the application under Section 264, petitioner had also withdrawn the appeal that he had filed before the CIT(Appeal) and, therefore, application under Section 264 itself was not maintainable. In our view, that was for the Commissioner before whom the application under Section 264 was pending to decide and pass the order, which has not been done. Whatever may be the merit of the application under Section 264, the fact is that application was still pending on the date the declaration under DTVSV Act was filed. Therefore, in our view, the rejection of petitioner s declaration under DTVSV Act for A.Y.-2006-2007 as contained in the Form-1 filed on 25th December 2020, is incorrect. Respondents are directed to process the application as contained in Form-1 filed on 25th December 2020 and pass such orders as required in accordance with law. Mr. Bora states petitioner had already made payments as per Form-1. If that is so, he may tender the same to the concerned authority, who shall examine the documents and give credit for the amount already paid.
Issues:
Impugning order rejecting declaration under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act 2020 (DTVSV Act). Application under Section 264 pending on specified date under DTVSV Act. Authority of Income Tax Officer under DTVSV Act. Eligibility criteria under DTVSV Act. Processing of application under DTVSV Act. Payment made as per Form-1 under DTVSV Act. Application of judgment to multiple assessment years. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the order rejecting their declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act 2020 (DTVSV Act) based on the rejection of their application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The rejection was due to the alleged delay in filing the revision petition, which was not condoned. The key issue was whether the application under Section 264 was pending on the specified date as required by the DTVSV Act. 2. The Court examined the eligibility criteria under the DTVSV Act, which defines an appellant as a person with a pending application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act on the specified date. The specified date for the DTVSV Act was 31st January 2020. The petitioner had filed the declaration/application before the deadline, but it was rejected on the grounds that there was no pending petition under Section 264 as of the specified date. 3. It was highlighted that the Income Tax Officer lacked the authority to dispose of the revision application filed under Section 264 of the Act. The petitioner had filed the revision application with a request for condonation of delay, and the application was still pending when the declaration under the DTVSV Act was filed. The Court emphasized that the rejection of the petitioner's declaration was incorrect as the application under Section 264 was pending on the specified date. 4. The Court clarified that the disposal of the revision petition and the withdrawal of the appeal by the petitioner were matters for the Commissioner to decide, and until a decision was made, the application under Section 264 remained pending. Therefore, the rejection of the declaration under the DTVSV Act was deemed incorrect, and the respondents were directed to process the application in accordance with the law. 5. Additionally, the Court addressed the issue of payments made by the petitioner as per Form-1 under the DTVSV Act. The petitioner was instructed to tender the same to the concerned authority for examination and credit. The judgment was also applied to multiple assessment years, with similar directions given for petitions pertaining to different assessment years. 6. Ultimately, all the petitions were disposed of based on the findings and directions provided in the judgment for the initial petition challenging the rejection of the declaration under the DTVSV Act.
|
