9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 117 - HC - Income TaxApplication under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) rejected - Petitioner s application came to be rejected on the ground that there was no appeal pending before any authority as on the date the declaration was filed - HELD THAT - Under the DTVSV Act, Section 4(1) provides that the declaration referred to in Section 3 shall be filed by the declarant before the designated authority in such form and verified in such manner as may be prescribed . A declarant is defined under Section 2(c) to be a person who files declaration under Section 4. Appellant is defined under Section 2(a)(ii) (since Ms. Sathe relied on this provision) to be a person in whose case an order has been passed by the Assessing Officer, or an order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in an appeal, or by the High Court in a writ petition, on or before the specified date, and the time for filing any appeal or special leave petition against such order by that person has not expired as on that date. Ms. Sathe submitted that the word Writ Petition used should be read to include even an appeal . Admittedly in this case, even if we, for a moment, agree to the suggestion made by Ms. Sathe, there is no appeal pending in this Court. Moreover, to a specific query posed by the Court, Ms. Sathe was candid to admit that even SLP has not been preferred in the Apex Court against the order dated 28th January 2020 passed by the High Court.
Issues involved:
The impugning of an order of rejection passed by respondents under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) regarding the petitioner's application. Comprehensive Details: Issue 1: Rejection of application under DTVSV Act The petitioner filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2001-2002, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed, leading to appeals before various authorities. The petitioner filed an appeal impugning the order dated 1st November 2004 passed by CIT(A) and also applied for condonation of delay before the ITAT. The ITAT rejected the condonation of delay application on 28th February 2017. The petitioner then filed an appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed on 28th January 2020. After the DTVSV Act came into force, the petitioner filed a declaration under the Act on 29th June 2020. Despite multiple notifications extending the time limit for availing benefits under the Act, the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that no appeal was pending before any authority at the time of filing the declaration. Issue 2: Interpretation of DTVSV Act provisions The DTVSV Act stipulates that upon filing a declaration, any pending appeal before the ITAT or CIT(A) regarding disputed income, interest, penalty, or tax arrears shall be deemed withdrawn. The Act also requires the withdrawal of any appeal or writ petition against a tax arrear order. The term "appellant" is defined under the Act, with a provision allowing withdrawal of appeals or writ petitions with the leave of the Court. The petitioner's counsel argued that the term "Writ Petition" should encompass "an appeal" as well. Issue 3: Lack of pending appeal Despite the petitioner's argument, it was acknowledged that there was no appeal pending in the High Court, and no Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Apex Court against the High Court's order dated 28th January 2020. Consequently, the Court deemed further action to be futile and dismissed the petition. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition as there was no pending appeal at the time of filing the declaration under the DTVSV Act, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's application.
|
