2024 (2) TMI 161 - HC - Income Tax

Benefit of the provisions of the DTVSV Act - as order of the Tribunal was not served upon the petitioner, the appeal before the Tribunal is to be treated as pending - It is the case of the petitioner that although the Tribunal heard and decided the appeal on 4th June 2019, the order was not made available for a long time and therefore, the petitioner could not prefer an appeal before the High Court - as submitted that in absence of the order served upon the petitioner, the petitioner was justified to state in the Form 1 and 2 that the appeals before the Tribunal were pending on 21st December 2020 when the petitioner filed Form 1 and 2 under the DTVSV Act - HELD THAT - The petitioner, filed Form 1 and 2 on 22nd December 2020 to get the benefit of the DTVSV Act, however, on the date on which the petitioner filed the Form 1 and 2 as per the provisions of Section 4 of the DTVSV Act read with Section 9 of the DTVSV Rules, no appeal either before the Tribunal or before the High Court was pending. The stand taken by the learned advocate for the petitioner that only because the order of the Tribunal was not served upon the petitioner, the appeal before the Tribunal is to be treated as pending and the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the DTVSV Act, is not acceptable for the only reason that the petitioner was aware about the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal on 4th June 2019. Even if reliance placed on behalf of the respondent with regard to service of the order of the Tribunal may not be believed, the fact remains that the petitioner was aware about the order dated 7th May 2019 passed by the Full Bench of the Tribunal and the order dated 4th June 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the Tribunal. In such circumstances, merely because the petitioner received certified copy of the order from the Tribunal on 22nd December 2020, the petitioner cannot contend that the appeal was pending before the Tribunal on the date of filing of the application in Form No.1 and 2 under the provisions of the DTVSV Act. It is true that the DTVSV Act is having the object of resolution of the disputed tax, however, the same cannot be made available to the assessees whose appeals are not pending on the specified date. If the application filed by the petitioner is ordered to be entertained, then the statutory provisions of the DTSVS Act would be rendered nugatory and appeal which was filed subsequently cannot being the case of the petitioner within the scope of provision of DTVSV Act. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The rejection of application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 is challenged by the petitioner in this Article 226 petition.

Details of the judgment:

Challenge to Rejection of Application:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of the application filed under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The petitioner claimed that they were not served with the orders passed by the Tribunal and were unaware of the outcome of the appeal. The petitioner filed Form 1 and 2 for resolution of the dispute, stating that the appeals filed by the Revenue were pending on 21st December 2020. The petitioner argued that they filed the appeal before the High Court as soon as they received a copy of the Tribunal's order. The petitioner contended that due to non-receipt of the order, they were justified in stating that the appeals were pending when filing the forms under the DTVSV Act.

Respondent's Argument and Rejection:
The respondent contended that the petitioner provided false information in Form 1 under the DTVSV Act by stating that certain appeals were pending before the Tribunal. The respondent argued that the appeals were disposed of in 2019, and the petitioner was aware of this fact. Therefore, the respondent authorities rightly rejected the forms filed by the petitioner.

Analysis and Decision:
Upon considering the provisions of the DTVSV Act and Rules, the Court noted that no appeal was pending before the Tribunal or High Court when the petitioner filed Form 1 and 2. The Court found that the petitioner was aware of the Tribunal's decision in June 2019, even though they received the order later. The Court emphasized that the DTVSV Act is not applicable to cases where appeals are not pending on the specified date. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's application was justified. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and no interference was deemed necessary.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely and accurate information in applications under the DTVSV Act, emphasizing that the benefits of the Act are contingent upon the pendency of appeals on the specified date.