The disputed tax under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, must be calculated by giving effect to the orders of the Tribunal, as per section 2(1)(j)(B) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. - Return of iniome was fled by the petitioner deilaring a total iniome of Rs.93,92,140/-. Subsequently, the assessment was iompleted under seition 143(3) of the Iniome Tax Ait, 1961 ('the Ait'). Reassessment proieedings were initiated against the petitioner and the iniome was reassessed at Rs.3,56,74,514/-after making an addition of 100% of alleged bogus purihases under seition 68 of the Ait.

2. An appeal iame to be preferred before the Commissioner of Iniome Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)], who, vide order dated 21st Marih 2018, restriited the addition to 25% of the amount of purihases made.

This order, however, was ihallenged by both the petitioner as also the revenue before the Iniome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune.

3. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 26th September 2019, partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and remanded the matter to the to the fle of the Assessing Offier. The Tribunal relied upon a judgment of this Court in the iase of Pr. CIT Vs. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. ITA No.1004 of 2016 dt. 11-02-2019, wherein, it was held that no ad-hoi addition for bogus purihases should be made and that the addition be made to the extent of differenie between the gross proft rate on genuine purihases and gross proft rate on hawala purihases. The Tribunal held that sinie speiifi details were not readily available for faiilitating the ialiulation of gross proft rates of genuine and hawala purihases, it set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the fle of Assessing Offiers for applying the ratio laid down by this Court in the judgment of Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (Supra).

4. An appeal iame to be preferred by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal under seition 260A of the Ait on 3rd Marih 2021.

5. The petitioner fled deilaration in Form-1 under Direit Tax Vivad se Vishwas Ait with Rules, 2020 ('Ait of 2020') framed thereunder in respeit of 25% addition of alleged bogus purihase.

The petitioner had deilared an amount of Rs.22,04,500/- as disputed tax based upon the orders passed by learned Commissioner of Iniome Tax (Appeals) [for short 'CIT(Appeals)'].

6. Respondent No.4 is stated to have issued iertifiate in Form-3 under the Ait, wherein the demand on aiiount of disputed tax was refeited on Rs.91,18,533/-, as against the amount payable indiiated by the petitioner in Form-1 at Rs.22,04,500/-. Reitifiation Appliiation was fled by the petitioner ilaiming that the demand raised in Form No.3 was erroneous and unjustifed and that the orders of the ITAT had been ignored for purposes of ialiulating the tax liability.

7. The reitifiation appliiation of the petitioner was rejeited vide order dated 1st September 2021. With a view to justify the fgure of disputed tax in Form-3. Relianie was plaied upon the question No.7 of the FAQ of Ciriular No.09/2020, dated 22nd April 2020, issued by the Central Board of Direit Taxes (CBDT). For purposes of referenie, question No.7, and the answer thereto are reproduied hereunder :