The DTVSV Act permits an assessee to settle individual appeals independently, not necessitating the settlement of all related appeals for the same assessment year.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.: PRIMARY ISSUE

1. The primary issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether an assessee is free to settle any appeal under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 ("DTVSV Act") and is not required to settle all the pending appeals filed by the respondents-revenue for an assessment year.

RELEVANT FACTS

2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the Petitioner is a banking company incorporated under the laws of Japan and carries on the banking business in India through branches in various cities. The return of income filed by the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment and a final assessment order dated 29th October, 2010 under Section 143 read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `Act') was passed by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2007-08 making various adjustments to the total income of the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner challenged the assessment order by filing an appeal before the Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 19th September, 2014 deciding the various issues as under:

a. Salary to expatriate employees - allowed in favour of petitioner-assessee.

b. Deferred Guarantee Commission - allowed in favour of petitioner-assessee.

c. Interest received by HO/overseas branches - allowed in favour of petitioner-assessee.

d. Deduction for interest paid to HO/overseas branches - allowed in favour of petitioner-assessee.

e. Interest received from HO/overseas branches - decided against the petitioner-assessee.

f. Applicability of Section 115JB to foreign banks - allowed in favour of petitioner-assessee.

g. Taxability of ECB Interest - remanded back.

h. Rate of tax - decided against the petitioner-assessee

4. The Petitioner challenged the order of the Tribunal on issues (e), (g) & (h) above and the Respondent-Department challenged the order of the Tribunal on issues (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) & (g) above by filing an appeal before this Court. By an order dated 13th March, 2015 the appeal of the Petitioner was admitted by this Court on issues (e) & (h) and the remand by the Tribunal on issue (g) was modified. And, by an order dated 08th April, 2016, the appeal of the Respondent-Department on issues (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) & (g) was dismissed by this Court.

5. On 28th July, 2016, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order in the remand proceeding holding that the ECB interest earned by the Petitioner is taxable under the Act and levied interest under Section 234B and 234D of the Act. The Petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 28th July, 2016 by filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

6. On 01st December, 2017, the Supreme Court issued notice in the Special Leave Petition ("SLP") filed by the Respondent-Department wherein the order of this Court dated 08th April, 2016, dismissing the Respondent-Department's appeal, was challenged on issues (a) & (f).

7. On 16th September, 2019, the Tribunal passed an order allowing the appeal of the Petitioner against the order dated 28th July, 2016 passed in remand proceeding and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of ECB interest and levy of interest under Section 234D of the Act.

8. On 17th March, 2020, the DTVSV Act was passed by the Parliament which allowed the assessees to settle any dispute pending before the Tribunal, High Court, Supreme Court or before any authorities under the Act.

9. On 08th December, 2020, the Petitioner filed an application under DTVSV Act to settle the deemed appeal of the Department against the order of the Tribunal dated 16th September, 2019.

10. On 14th December, 2020, the Respondent-Department issued a show-cause notice proposing to reject the application filed by the Petitioner as the Petitioner was not settling the Respondent-Department's SLP pending in the Supreme Court for the same assessment year. On 16th December, 2020, the Petitioner filed its response and submitted that there is no compulsion to settle t