Tax Dispute Resolution: Assessee can settle appeals individually. Court directs revenue to reconsider, potentially leading to refund.

The Court held that under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, an assessee is not required to settle all pending appeals for an assessment year but can settle any appeal individually. The Court set aside the order rejecting the Petitioner's application and directed the revenue to reconsider the declaration for the assessment year 2007-08, potentially resulting in a refund to the Petitioner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. 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.

Issue-Wise
Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether an assessee is free to settle any appeal under the DTVSV Act, 2020 and is not required to settle all the pending appeals filed by the respondents-revenue for an assessment year.

Relevant Facts:
The Petitioner, a banking company incorporated in Japan, challenged various adjustments made by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The Tribunal's order dated 19th September 2014 decided several issues in favor of the petitioner, while some were decided against it. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent-Department filed appeals. The Petitioner later filed an application under the DTVSV Act to settle the deemed appeal of the Department against the Tribunal's order dated 16th September 2019. The Department rejected this application, arguing that the Petitioner must settle all pending appeals for the same assessment year.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that the DTVSV Act treats each appeal and SLP as separate disputes for settlement purposes, as evident from Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(a) of the DTVSV Act and Rule 2(b) of the DTVSV Rules. The Petitioner emphasized that the Act allows an assessee to file a declaration for any appeal or SLP pending before an appellate authority without the necessity to settle all appeals for a particular assessment year. The Petitioner relied on Circular No.9/2020 issued by CBDT to support this contention.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:
The Respondents contended that the DTVSV Act requires settling all issues for an assessment year, not allowing the assessee to pick and choose. They emphasized that the unit for settlement under the Act is an assessment year, not individual appeals. The Respondents also argued that any ambiguity in the amnesty scheme should be construed in favor of the Revenue, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Company and Ors.

Court's Reasoning:
The Court determined that the DTVSV Act is a remedial/beneficial statute aimed at reducing litigation, generating timely revenue, and providing certainty and savings of resources. Consequently, the principles of purposive and liberal interpretation should be applied. The Court held that the unit for settlement under the DTVSV Act is an appeal, writ petition, or SLP, not the assessment year. This interpretation is supported by Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(a) of the Act and Rule 2(b) of the DTVSV Rules. The Court also noted that the issues involved in the Department's SLP and the deemed appeal arising from the Tribunal's order were different and unconnected.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that an assessee is free to settle any appeal under the DTVSV Act and is not required to settle all the pending appeals filed by the respondent-revenue for an assessment year. The impugned order rejecting the Petitioner's application was set aside, and the respondents-revenue were directed to reconsider the declaration filed by the Petitioner.

Relief:
The impugned order and reasons were set aside. The respondents-revenue were directed to reconsider the declaration filed by the Petitioner for the assessment year 2007-08 and issue a refund, if any, in accordance with the law within eight weeks.

---