TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "DTVSV Act, 2020" for the sake of brevity), was enacted on 17.03.2020 with the objective to reduce pending Income Tax litigation, so also to generate timely revenue for the Government and also for the benefit of tax payers. The scheme thereunder, namely Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ("VSVS, 2020" for the sake of brevity), was launched. This scheme provided for settlement of disputed tax, interest, penalty in connection with an assessment order. The VSVS, 2020 is made applicable to those tax payers whose appeals are pending in various Courts as of 31st January 2020. 4. The Central Board of Direct Taxes ("C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... along-with application for condonation of delay, as the appeals were late by 84 days. The applications for condonation of delay came to be rejected by the CITA vide orders dated 28th December, 2020. The said orders were challenged by the petitioner before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur ("ITAT" for the sake of brevity). The Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 24th February, 2021 has been pleased to condone the delay in filing appeals and thus set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-III). 6. In the meantime, the petitioner has received an intimation dated 29th January, 2020, whereby the respondent No.3-Designated Authority i.e., Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Nagpur has re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S, 2020 for the reason that filing appeal along-with application for condonation of delay is within the control of petitioner, but its decision is not. In any case, it is argued that since the appeals were pending as on the specified date, the case of the petitioner was covered in terms of section 2(1)(a) of the DTVSV Act, 2020. 9. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 24th June, 2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1992 of 2021 (Karan Ventakeshwara Associates v. Income Tax Officer-ITO Ward 7(3), Pune and others). Similar such question arose in the said petition. The relevant findings appear in paras 4 and 6 of the order, which read as under: "4. The issue at hand revolves around....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge, the learned counsel for the respondents by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M/s. Charak Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd., reported in (2003) 11 SCC 689 contends that to avail benefit under such scheme, the party approaching for benefit must fully comply with the provisions of the scheme and if all the requirements of the scheme are not met then on principles of equity, Courts may not extend the benefit of that scheme. 12. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4130 of 2020 (M/s. National Construction Company v. Designated Committee) and contended that the petitioner therein applied for benefit under the scheme, which was designed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.3, therefore, could not have rejected the declaration filed by the petitioner. 15. The petitioner has also challenged the Circular No.21/2020 on the ground that the right conferred under Section 2(1)(a)(i) cannot be limited by a clarificatory order in the manner it has been done. The clarification cannot add new qualifications beyond the provisions of the DTVSV Act, 2020 and that clarification can only operate within contours specified in the DTVSV Act, 2020. Question No.59 in the said circular deals with the situation where time limit for filing appeal has expired during the period from 1st April, 2019 to 31st January, 2020 and appeal having been admitted prior to 31st January, 2020. The petitioner has challenged said clarification on ....