The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the eligibility criteria under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020, and the adverse impact of additional qualifications on the assessee, emphasizing the need for a broad and liberal construction of beneficial statutes.

JUDGMENT :

(Kamal Khata, J.)

1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned rejection order dated 3rd August 2021 passed by Respondent no. 2 whereby the Miscellaneous Application (‘MA’) filed by the Petitioner under section (‘u/s’) 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (‘Act’) was stated as not covered under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020 (‘DTVSV-A’) as it was not filed in pursuance of an appeal ‘dismissed in limine’. It also seeks a mandamus against the Respondent No. 2 to issue an acknowledgment in Form 3 against the application made by the Petitioner in Form 1 and Form 2 under section 4 of DTVSVA read with Rule 3 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Rules 2020 (‘DTVSV-R’).

FACTS:

2. On 31st October 2009 the petitioner filed it's original e-return of income for the assessment year (‘AY’) 2009-10 whereby it declared a total income of Rs.16,27,70,190/-. On 11th August 2010 the petitioner revised it's ITR, to declare an income of Rs.16,15,96,380/-. On 29th March 2011 the revised ITR was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act resulting in refund of Rs.1,50,46,150/-. Its assessment was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (‘CASS’), notices were issued u/s 143(2) dated 16th August 2010, 11th July 2011 and 8th May 2012 which were responded to by the Petitioner. An assessment order dated 25th March 2013 was passed by the DCIT assessing Petitioner’s income at Rs.18,15,27,530/- on account of disallowing deductions of Rs.1,99,31,152/- claimed by the Petitioner. A show cause notice dated 28th March 2013 came to be issued u/s 271 (1)(c) r.w.s. 274 whereby interest was charged u/s 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. An appeal was preferred u/s 246A(1) of the Act r.w. rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 against the order passed by the DCIT dated 25th March 2013. The appeal was dismissed on 20th August 2014, to which an appeal was preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) u/s 253 of the ITA r.w Rule 47(1) on 30th September 2014.

3. The ITAT dismissed the appeal on 20th May 2016 u/s 254(1) of the Act. A Miscellaneous Application (‘MA’) dated 17th September 2016 (‘MA-1’ for short) was preferred by the Petitioner seeking adjudication of ground nos. 3 & 4 that remained undecided. By an order dated 14th May 2019, the ITAT modified its order thereby reducing the income of the Petitioner from Rs.1,78,77,487/- to Rs.50,58,159/-. The DCIT passed an order dated 27th September 2019 giving effect to the ITAT order dated 14th May 2019.

4. After receiving the DCIT’s order (dated 27th September 2019) on 25th November 2019, the Petitioner sought an amendment in the order from the DCIT for considering the computation of tax on the profit embedded. The Petitioner also preferred an MA dated 6th August 2019 (MA-2 for short) u/s 254 (2) for adjudication of ground 4 which yet again remained undecided by the ITAT by its order dated 14th May 2019. This MA-2 which was pending adjudication on the date the Petition was filed.

5. On 17th March 2020 the DTVSV-A was introduced and on 30th January 2021 the Petitioner made an application to avail the benefit. This application was rejected by an order dated 3rd August 2021 on the basis of FAQ No. 61 of Circular No. 21 of 2020 stating that this case is not eligible under DTVSV-A.

6. This Petition filed on 17th September 2021 seeks to challenge the impugned order of rejection dated 3rd August 2021.

7. Mr. Sanket Bora learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the MA-2 ought to be construed as a pending appeal until adjudication of the MA-2 and consequently the Petitioner ought to be entitled for obtaining benefit under the DTVSV-A more particularly when the MA-2 was pending prior to the introduction of DTVSV-A. He urged that the impugned rejection was against the object of the DTVSV-A as provided in Circular No. 21 of 2020 which is extracted for ease of reference hereunder:

“To reduce pending income tax litigation, gener