JUDGMENT :

OSWAL, J.

1. Pursuant to an order passed under Sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short- ‘the Act’), the respondent No. 3 assessed the tax liability of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 and called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.29,73,640/-. Further, by a separate order dated 14.06.2019 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the petitioner was directed to deposit a penalty amounting to Rs.10,62,037/- on account of concealment of income.

2. The aforesaid two orders were assailed by the petitioner by way of separate Revision Petitions filed before the Revisional Authority under Section 264 of the Act on 16.03.2020. During the pendency of the said Revision Petitions, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, introduced the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (for short, “the Act of 2020”). The rules under the Scheme were framed vide Notification No. S.O. 1129(E).

3. The petitioner claims to have applied under the Act of 2020 before the respondent No. 2 by submitting online Forms 1 and 2 within the prescribed time for availing the benefits under the Act of 2020. In order to claim the benefit of the Scheme, the petitioner furnished a declaration on 23.02.2021 and undertaking that he would not pursue any remedy in relation to the tax arrears. Thereafter, Form 3 dated 04.03.2021 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 2. Subsequently, through his Tax Consultant, the petitioner sought withdrawal of the two Revision Petitions, and respondent No. 2 vide a common order dated 17.03.2021, disposed of the said Revision Petitions accordingly.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner received a communication dated 14.05.2022 informing him that Form-4 under the Act of 2020 had not been submitted for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. Vide letter dated 16.05.2022, the petitioner sought time to make the requisite deposit on the ground that he was to superannuate on 30.09.2022 and was expecting release of his retiral benefits. The petitioner further claims to have made a representation to the Ministry of Finance on 27.10.2023 explaining the reasons for his inability to comply with the requirements of the Act of 2020.

5. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 reintroduced the DTVSV Scheme in the year 2024 (for short- ‘the scheme of 2024’), providing a mechanism for extending benefits to those Assesses whose litigation(s) was/were pending as on the specified date, i.e., 22.07.2024. The petitioner once again submitted Form-1 and, in Schedule-X thereof, declared his liability to pay the tax assessed for the Financial Year 2011-2012 amounting to Rs.11,68,241/- on 25.11.2024, which was subsequently revised on 23.12.2024, well before the cut-off date of 31.12.2024. However, the respondent No. 2 rejected the said application (Form-1) vide order dated 10.01.2025, observing that in terms of Section 89 of the Scheme of 2024, a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act must be pending on 22.07.2024. Since, in the petitioner’s case, the Revision Petitions had already been disposed of by the PCIT, Srinagar, vide order dated 17.03.2021, no such proceedings were pending on the cut-off date, i.e. 22.07.2024. The petitioner was, therefore, held ineligible to claim the benefit under the Scheme of 2024.

6. The order dated 10.01.2025 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner contends that the respondents have erred in rejecting his application for availing the benefit under the Scheme of 2024. According to the petitioner, in terms of Section 4(6) of the Act of 2020, upon his failure to make the payment within the stipulated period, the Revision Petitions filed by him and withdrawn stood revived automatically. It is, thus, the precise case of the petitioner that his inability to comply with the mandate of the Act within stipulated timeline resulted in automatic revival of the Revision Petitions, by operation of Section 4(6) of the Act of 2020. However, the respondent No. 2, in disrega