Petitioner's Late Appeal Bars Relief Under Tax Dispute Settlement Act; Court Upholds Mandatory Compliance Rules.

The HC dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to benefit from The Direct Tax Vivaad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 due to failure to file a second appeal within the specified time frame. The court emphasized that compliance with statutory conditions is mandatory for settling disputes under the Act. The petitioner had delayed filing the second appeal by 1261 days without seeking timely condonation. The court found no error in the rejection of the application by the authorities and noted that the petitioner still has the right to appeal before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of whether the petitioner is entitled to benefit from The Direct Tax Vivaad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 despite not filing a second appeal within the specified time frame.

Summary:
The petitioner was imposed a penalty under Section 271 AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-2014. After filing an initial appeal which partially allowed and reduced the penalty amount, the petitioner did not file a further appeal for a long period. Subsequently, a second appeal was filed after a delay of 1261 days, which is pending before the Tribunal. The petitioner sought to settle the matter under The Direct Tax Vivaad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, but the application was rejected due to not filing the second appeal before the cut-off date. The petitioner argued that the Act aims for settlement over litigation, and hence, should be allowed to benefit from it. On the other hand, the revenue authorities contended that the petitioner did not file any appeal within the limitation period and failed to seek delay condonation within the specified time frame. The High Court held that the right to settle disputes outside courts is a statutory right created by the Act and must be strictly complied with. Since the petitioner did not fulfill the statutory conditions, the court found no error in the authority's decision to reject the application. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner still retains the right to appeal before the Tribunal, even after the delay in filing the second appeal was condoned. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed for lacking merits.

---