Point of Law : Income Tax Act – Scheme "provide for resolution of disputed tax – Cut of date – Delay in making application - Scheme was intended to give a quietus to huge pending direct tax litigation either at the behest of the assessee or by the Department and collect only the disputed taxes by granting waiver of penalty and interest. If the above object is taken into consideration, the Act of 2020, as enacted, would have to be considered as a beneficial piece of legislation.

ORDER :

T. Vinod Kumar, J.

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the proceeding dt. 22.04.2021 issued by the 1st respondent, whereby the petitioner’s revised declaration/ application dt. 31.03.2021 in Form 1 and 2, filed under the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (for short, ‘the Act of 2020’), was rejected.

Back ground facts :

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent had completed the assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2011-12 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act of 1961’) on 28.12.2018; that aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 246A of the Act of 1961 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short, ‘the CIT’), on 19.02.2019; that the said appeal was dismissed by the CIT on 18.09.2019; that assailing the said order, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) on 25.01.2021, along with an application to condone the delay in filing such appeal; and that the Tribunal heard the appeal of the petitioner on 05.02.2021 by condoning the delay and by order dt.15.02.2021, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back by restoring the file to the CIT.

3. It is further contended by the petitioner that, in the interregnum, the Government of India had enacted the Act of 2020 dt. 17.03.2020; and that the said enactment was intended to “provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that in respect of the tax dispute relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12, he intended to avail the benefit under the Act of 2020, and accordingly, submitted application in the prescribed form on 08.02.2021. It is claimed that, in the said application filed on 08.02.2021, the petitioner had mentioned that an appeal against the order of the CIT had been filed before the Tribunal, bearing ITA No.87/H/2021.

5. The said application filed by the petitioner on 08.02.2021 under the Act of 2020 in Form 1 was rejected by the 1st respondent on 31.03.2021. The reason for such rejection of the application is stated as under:

“In this case the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on 18.09.2019 and hence, the time limit for filing further appeal expires on 18.11.2019 but the assessee filed the appeal on 25.01.2021. Since there was no appeal pending as on specified date, i.e., 31.01.2020, the declaration made is invalid and hence, the same is rejected”.

6. The petitioner contends that immediately on receipt of the above said communication rejecting the declaration/application filed in Form 1, an e-mail communication was addressed by him, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the order of the CIT dismissing the appeal on 18.09.2019, before the Tribunal on 25.01.2021, along with an application for condonation of delay for non filing of the appeal in time. In the said communication, the petitioner also stated that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Tribunal, the appeal was admitted, and by order dt. 15.02.2021, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remitted the appeal back to the CIT; and thus, the appeal is pending for fresh adjudication. Hence, the appeal is to be treated as pending before the CIT as on 31.01.2020 and accordingly, requested for accepting the application submitted in Forms 1 and 2 under the Act of 2020, and the same cannot be rejected on the ground that there was no appeal pending as on the specified date viz., 31.01.2020.

7. The petitioner, in the writ affidavit on oath, has stated that the 1st respondent, on being contacted, had informed the petitioner that there is no mechanism provided for withdrawing the rejection order passed or rectifying the same, and advised the petitioner to resubmit Forms 1 and 2 afresh.

8. The petitioner thereafter re-submitted declaration/application under t