Court sets aside orders, directs revenue to consider petitioner's forms under 2020 Act, emphasizing appeal's pending status.

The court allowed the petitioner-assessee's writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders. The revenue was directed to consider Forms 1 and 2 filed by the petitioner-assessee and proceed as per the 2020 Act's provisions, considering the specified timelines. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's rectification of its earlier order breathed life into the appeal, making it pending on the specified date.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of rejection of Forms 1 and 2 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
2. Whether the revenue's appeal was pending on the specified date (31.01.2020) under the 2020 Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rejection of Forms 1 and 2:
The petitioner-assessee challenged the orders dated 27.01.2021 and 11.02.2021, which rejected Forms 1 and 2 filed under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Assessing Officer (AO) had increased the petitioner-assessee’s taxable income from Rs. 21,21,160 to Rs. 2,19,50,020 for AY 2011-2012, disallowing deductions under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner-assessee's appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was allowed, but the revenue's subsequent appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) was dismissed based on a mistaken belief about previous years' decisions.

The Tribunal later rectified this mistake via a Miscellaneous Application (MA) under Section 254(2) of the Act, restoring the revenue’s appeal for fresh hearing. The petitioner-assessee filed Forms 1 and 2 under the 2020 Act, which were rejected by the designated authority. The court had to determine if the revenue's appeal was pending on the specified date (31.01.2020) as per the 2020 Act.

2. Whether the Revenue's Appeal was Pending on the Specified Date:
The petitioner-assessee argued that the revenue’s appeal was pending because the MA filed by the revenue on 13.11.2018 was allowed on 11.05.2020, restoring the appeal dismissed on 22.06.2018. The revenue contended that the 2020 Act did not mention MAs and that the dismissal of the appeal was on merits.

The court concluded that the Tribunal’s order dated 22.06.2018 was based on a mistake of fact and was dismissed "in limine" (preliminarily). The Tribunal corrected this mistake on 11.05.2020, restoring the revenue’s appeal, which was pending for a fresh hearing. The court referred to FAQ 61 in the revenue’s Circular No. 21 of 2020, which stated that an MA pending on 31.01.2020 in respect of an appeal dismissed in limine would be covered by the scheme. The court determined that the revenue’s appeal was indeed pending on the specified date, applying the doctrine of relation back, which treats an act done at a later time as though it occurred earlier.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petitioner-assessee's writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders. The revenue was directed to consider Forms 1 and 2 filed by the petitioner-assessee and proceed as per the 2020 Act's provisions, considering the specified timelines. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's rectification of its earlier order breathed life into the appeal, making it pending on the specified date.

---