9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the Portal of the Department, rejecting the Declaration filed by the Petitioner under the said Act, deserves to be quashed and set aside, and is accordingly quashed and set aside. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6232 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2021 - HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI AND HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI MR. TUSHAR HEMANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI) 1. Rule. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent waives service of Rule. 2. With the consent of learned learned Advocate for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present Petition filed by the Petitioner Tushare Agro Chemicals, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the impugned communication dated 22.2.2021 (Annexure-F), rejecting the Declaration filed by the Petitioner under The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). 4. The facts in nutshell, giving rise to the present Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the Court to the Scheme of the said Act, more particularly, the definition of an Appellant contained in Section 2(i)(a), submitted that since the Appeal of the Petitioner was pending before the Appellate Authority on the specified date , i.e. 31.1.2020, the Petitioner was an Appellant as defined under the said Act, and was eligible to file the Declaration. According to him, the same has been wrongly rejected on the extraneous ground that there was no reply received from CIT (Appeals), as to whether, any order of condonation of delay was passed in the said Appeal or not. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shatrusailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja [2005] 147 Taxman 566 (SC) as also on the unreported decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Shyam Sunder Sethi v. Pr. Commissioenr of Income Tax -10 Ors. passed in W.P. (C) 2291/2021 and CM Appl. 6677/2021, to submit that the Declaration of the Appellant could not have been rejected by the Respondent Authority when the Appeal was pending, even if the delay was not condoned by the Appellate Forum. He also submitted that there is no prac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition or any other proceeding has been filed either by him or by the income-tax authority or by both before an appellate forum, arising out of an order of the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, and such petition or appeal is either pending or is disposed of.] 8. As per Section 2(i)(n), specified date means the 31st day of January, 2020; 9. In the light of the aforestated provisions, let s examine as to whether the petitioner could be said to be an Appellant within the meaning of Section 2(i)(a) of the said Act or not. In the present Petition, there are certain undisputed facts. It is not disputed that the Appeal filed by the Petitioner electronically on 17.5.2016 against the order of assessment dated 25.2.2016 is pending with the Appellate Authority, though there was delay of 40 days occurred in filing the said Appeal. It is also not disputed that the said delay has not been condoned by the Appellate Authority since the filing of the Appeal. It is stated at the bar by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani, and not disputed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel Mrs. Mauna Bhatt that there is no practice of registering an application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the earlier Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. As stated above, the said Scheme was a complete Code by itself. Its object was to put an end to all pending matters in the form of appeals, reference, revisions and writ petitions under the IT Act/WT Act. Keeping in mind the above object, we have to examine section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme, which was different from appeals under section 246, revisions under section 264, appeals under section 260A etc. of the IT Act and similar provisions under the W.T. Act. Under the I.T. Act, there is a difference between appeals, revisions and references. However, those differences were obliterated and appeals, revisions and references were put on par under section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme. The object behind section 95(i)(c) in putting on par appeals, references and revisions was to put an end to litigation in various forms and at various stages under the IT Act/Wealth Tax Act and, therefore, the rulings on the scope of appeals and revisions under the IT Act or on Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, will not apply to this case. 15. In the case of Dr. Mrs. Renuka Delta (supra), this Court has held on interpretation of section 95(i)(c) that if the appeal or revisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
