JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner is stated to be an individual, his income being profits from a partnership firm, income from house property, interest, dividend and income from dealing in shares and derivatives.

2. Petitioner filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2015- 16 on 29th September 2015 declaring a total income of Rs.1,52,19,010/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny assessment and an order dated 27th December, 2017 was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Income Tax Act") wherein an addition of Rs.84,25,075/- was made under Section 68 and an addition of Rs.11,75,901/- was made under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act. It appears that additions were made by the Assessing Officer on the basis that petitioner had booked artificial long term capital gains of Rs.5,73,23,123/- and claimed exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act thereon by selling shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Limited ("Lifeline Drugs") for a total consideration of Rs.5,87,95,055/-. The case of the Assessing Officer was that the price of this share was artificially rigged by certain operators, the details of which were divulged in the course of a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act carried out by the Kolkata Investigation wing of the Income Tax department during which certain statements were recorded under Section 132(4) and in the course of a survey action under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act on the premises of M/s. Gateway Financial Service Limited and Korp Securities Limited where also statements of Directors were recorded. By an Order dated 18th February 2019 under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, the addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act was revised to Rs.5,87,95,055/- .Aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders, petitioner filed appeals to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

3. While the aforesaid appeals were pending, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act,2020 ("DTVSV Act") received the assent of the President of India on March 17, 2020, giving an option to the tax payers to settle their income tax disputes by making a declaration to the designated authority and paying varying percentages of the disputed tax as specified under Section 3 of the DTVSV Act. On 18th March 2020, the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Rules, 2020 (the "DTVSV Rules") were notified under Section 12 of the DTVSV Act. On 22nd April 2020, respondent No.2 Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT") issued Circular No.9 of 2020 under Sections 10 and 11 of the DTVSV Act clarifying certain aspects of the DTVSV Act in the form of answers to Frequently Asked Questions. On 4th December 2020, respondent No.2 issued another Circular being Circular No.21 making further clarifications again in the form of Questions and Answers. One such question being FAQ No.70 and its answer which is also the subject matter of challenge in this petition. While this petition was pending, CBDT has issued another circular No.4/2021 dated 23rd March 2021 further clarifying the answer to Qus.No.70 on which we will dwell little later.

4. Petitioner filed declaration in Form No.1 under Section 4(1) of the DTVSV Act read with Rule 3(1) of the DTVSV Rules on 16th December 2020. The disputed income was declared to be Rs.5,98,90,960/- and the disputed tax thereon as Rs.2,02,69,581/-. Petitioner submitted that the gross amount payable by it was 100% of the disputed tax i.e. Rs.2,02,69,581/- out of which a sum of Rs.69,31,892/- was declared to have been paid and the balance of Rs.1,33,37,689/- was declared to be payable by Petitioner.

5. By Order dated 26th January 2021, Respondent No.1 being the Designated Authority, passed an order in Form No.3 under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act read with Rule 4 of the DTVSV Rules, determining the tax payable by petitioner to be Rs.2,57,67,714/- being 125% of the disputed tax as against Rs.2,02,69,581/- being 100% of the disputed ta