TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the revisional order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained despite the assessee having been granted immunity under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016. (ii) Whether the immunity granted under the scheme barred reopening or revisional interference merely because the penalty was stated to have been imposed under an allegedly incorrect provision.
Issue (i): Whether the revisional order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained despite the assessee having been granted immunity under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016.
Analysis: The certificate issued under the scheme had not been challenged and continued to operate. The scheme certificate granted immunity from penalty proceedings in respect of the disputed tax, and the order passed under the scheme was conclusive under section 204(3) of the scheme. In that situation, the revisional authority could not direct a de novo penalty order merely on the basis of an audit objection.
Conclusion: The revisional order could not be sustained and the issue was answered against the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the immunity granted under the scheme barred reopening or revisional interference merely because the penalty was stated to have been imposed under an allegedly incorrect provision.
Analysis: The immunity was general against penalty proceedings and was not confined to any particular penal provision. Therefore, even if the penalty was said to have been imposed under one provision instead of another, that distinction did not dilute the immunity already granted under the scheme. The question of whether the case fell within the exclusion mentioned in the scheme did not survive once the certificate had attained finality.
Conclusion: The immunity barred further penalty-related action and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tribunal's order failed because the final scheme certificate operated as a conclusive bar against the proposed penalty revision, leaving no substantial question of law for interference.
Ratio Decidendi: A final immunity certificate issued under a dispute resolution scheme, once it attains conclusiveness, bars subsequent penalty revision or reopening in respect of the disputed tax, and such immunity is not defeated by a change in the statutory provision invoked for penalty.
TaxTMI 
