AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....('DTVSV-R'). FACTS: 2. On 31st October 2009 the petitioner filed it's original e-return of income for the assessment year ('AY') 2009-10 whereby it declared a total income of Rs.16,27,70,190/-. On 11th August 2010 the petitioner revised it's ITR, to declare an income of Rs. 16,15,96,380/-. On 29th March 2011 the revised ITR was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act resulting in refund of Rs.1,50,46,150/-. Its assessment was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection ('CASS'), notices were issued u/s 143(2) dated 16th August 2010, 11th July 2011 and 8th May 2012 which were responded to by the Petitioner. An assessment order dated 25th March 2013 was passed by the DCIT assessing Petitioner's income at Rs.18,15,27,530/- on account of disallowing deductions of Rs. 1,99,31,152/- claimed by the Petitioner. A show cause notice dated 28th March 2013 came to be issued u/s 271 (1)(c) r.w.s. 274 whereby interest was charged u/s 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. An appeal was preferred u/s 246A(1) of the Act r.w. rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 against the order passed by the DCIT dated 25th March 2013. The appeal was dismissed on 20th August 2014, to which an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Vishwas") was enacted on 17th March 2020." 8. The learned counsel urged that section 2(j) (F) of the DTVSV-A inter alia envisages pendency of application for revision u/s 264 of the Act on the specified date. It was submitted that the Respondent could not have rejected the application on the ground that the MA-2 was not maintainable on any basis whatsoever and consequently declare the appeal being ineffective or infructuous. It was further submitted that the Petitioner ought not to be deprived of DTVSV-A a beneficial legislation inasmuch as the Petitioner was admittedly in litigation prior to the specified date as envisaged by it. 9. The learned counsel would further argue that the FAQ No. 61 contemplated a general situation and could not be read down to exclude, but ought to be read broadly to include cases as that of the Petitioner. It was urged that although the Appeal was dismissed on 20th May 2016, there were two grounds viz. nos. 3 & 4 that were not adjudicated upon by the ITAT. He further submitted that both MAs were sought for adjudication of those two grounds only. It was stated that although a review was sought on both grounds viz. 3 & 4 in MA-1, ground 4 remained to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of the MA-2 may be negative, decide this Petition. This Court cannot also ignore that MA-1 was decided in favour of the Petitioner and consequently the subsequent order merged with the previous order. We therefore accept the contention of the Petitioner that the MA-2 simply is a pending application for adjudication of the ground that remained to be decided in the disposed appeal. 14. It is not in dispute that the DTVSV-A was enacted with the objective of, inter alia, reducing pending income tax disputes, generate timely revenue for the Government and benefit taxpayer by providing them peace of mind, certainty and savings on account of time and resources that would otherwise be spent on the long-drawn and vexatious litigation process to resolve the disputes. Such disputes emanate from appeals filed by the taxpayer against the orders passed by the Income Tax Authorities and result in tax arrears consisting of disputed tax, disputed penalty, disputed interest or disputed fees. It is also admitted by the Respondents that the objective of the DTVSV is to reduce litigation. It is further admitted that Circular No. 21/2020 was issued u/s 10 & 11 of the DTVSV-A to remove difficulty. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of fiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the assessee and the fiscal laws may be correctly applied. Hard cases which can be properly categorized as belonging to a class can thus be given the benefit of relaxation of law by issuing circulars binding on the taxing authorities." 17. In another decision the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur vs Ratan Melting & Wire Industries (2008) 13 SCC 1 has held as under: "7 Circulars and instructions issued by the board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the court to direct that the circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the Court. It is for the Court to declare what the particular provision of the statute says and it is not for the e....