Court sets aside rejections under Direct Tax Vivad-Se-Vishwas Act, emphasizes procedural compliance.

The court set aside the rejections of the declarations under Section 4(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad-Se-Vishwas Act for multiple assessment years and directed the designated authority to consider the applications within two weeks. The petitioner was deemed to qualify as an "appellant" under the Act, and the court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and reasoned decision-making. The rejection of the declarations without a proper order was deemed unjustified, highlighting the Act's aim to reduce litigation and provide certainty to taxpayers.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of declarations under Section 4(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad-Se-Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) for multiple assessment years.
2. Determination of whether the petitioner qualifies as an "appellant" under the DTVSV Act.
3. Interpretation of "disputed tax" under the DTVSV Act.
4. The procedural and substantive compliance with the DTVSV Act and Rules by the petitioner.
5. The validity and legality of the rejection of the petitioner’s declarations by the designated authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Declarations under Section 4(1) of the DTVSV Act:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of its declarations filed on 18th November 2020 under Section 4(1) of the DTVSV Act for eleven assessment years from 1988-89 to 1998-99. The declarations were rejected by updating the status on the e-filing portal on 30th January 2021, without passing any order or assigning reasons.

2. Determination of Whether the Petitioner Qualifies as an "Appellant":
The petitioner argued that he qualifies as an "appellant" under Section 2(1)(a)(v) of the DTVSV Act because he had filed an application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, which was pending on the specified date (31st January 2020). The court agreed, noting that the Revenue also admitted that the petitioner is an appellant as per the DTVSV Act.

3. Interpretation of "Disputed Tax":
The petitioner contended that the term "disputed tax" under Section 2(1)(j)(F) of the DTVSV Act includes the tax payable if the revision application under Section 264 was not accepted. The court found merit in this argument, stating that the definition of "disputed tax" is relevant and applicable in the petitioner’s case, as the petitioner would be liable to pay a substantial amount if the revision application was rejected.

4. Procedural and Substantive Compliance with the DTVSV Act and Rules:
The petitioner had filed declarations in Form-1 and undertakings in Form-2 as per Rule 3 of the DTVSV Rules. The court noted that the petitioner had complied with the procedural requirements and that the Revenue had not raised any objections under any provision of the DTVSV Act or Rules regarding the declarations or undertakings.

5. Validity and Legality of the Rejection of the Petitioner’s Declarations:
The court observed that the Revenue had rejected the declarations without passing a reasoned or speaking order, which is not contemplated under the DTVSV Act or Rules. The court emphasized that the DTVSV Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at reducing litigation and providing certainty to taxpayers. The court concluded that the rejection of the declarations was unjustified and directed the designated authority to consider the applications in accordance with the DTVSV Act and Rules.

Judgment:
The court set aside the rejections of the declarations and directed the designated authority to consider the applications made by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order. The petition was allowed, and no order as to costs was made. The parties were instructed to act on an ordinary copy of the order duly authenticated by the Associate of the court.

---