AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not confine the settlement of disputes to only some issues that had arisen in the assessment year, while leaving the others. Thus, the principal question that falls for consideration of this court is whether the Assessee is entitled to confine the settlement of the disputes, which were subject matter of its appeal filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT) being ITA No. 5958/Del/2014 in respect of assessment year (AY) 2011-12 and excluding the disputes, which was the subject matter of the Revenue's appeal for the same assessment year. 3. The said appeal was filed by the Assessee impugning an order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVII [hereafter CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the Assessee's appeal. This resulted in both the Assessee and the Revenue preferring their respective appeals against the order dated 25.07.2014 rendered by the CIT(A). The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s decision to the extent that the Assessee had succeeded and the Assessee appealed the decision to the extent that it hadn't. The learned ITAT, by its order dated 09.12.2019, allowed the Assessee's appeal (being ITA No. 5958/Del/2014), but d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same were purchased by the purchaser of the property and therefore, the Assessee's claim that it had incurred the said expenditure was not accepted. 9. The Assessee appealed the assessment order dated 10.03.2024 before the learned CIT(A) [being Appeal No.391/13-14]. 10. The learned CIT(A) set aside the addition of Rs. 5,39,500/- in respect of payment of stamp duty as the sale deed of the property clearly reflected that the expenditure for the stamp duty was required to be borne by the Assessee. And, the Assessee had also produced a copy of the bank statement reflecting the payment of the stamp duty. 11. Insofar as the deletion of addition of Rs. 50,12,337/- on account of loss in the derivatives segment is concerned, the learned CIT(A) upheld the decision of the AO and rejected the Assessee's appeal. However, the learned CIT(A) sustained the Assessee's challenge to the addition of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) found that the Assessee had established the identity and creditworthiness of his shareholders. Therefore, an addition under Section 68 of the Act was not justified. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- to the Assessee's income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petition to the limited extent that it had modified the Assessee's declaration. 16. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the learned ITAT in the Assessee's appeal [being ITA No. 5958/Del/2014) as well as in its appeal (being ITA No. 5411/Del/2014) preferred a consolidated appeal under Section 260A of the Act in this Court (being ITA No. 143/2021) on 11.08.2021. REASONS & CONCLUSION 17. At the outset, it is relevant to note that there is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of DTVSV Act in respect of its disputed tax liability pertaining to AY 2011-12. The only question which is required to be addressed is whether the Assessee can confine the settlement of disputes to the issue regarding disallowance of loss claimed by it in respect of trading in derivatives, which was subject matter of its appeal (being ITA No. 5958/Del/2014) and was disposed of by the learned ITAT by its order dated 09.12.2019. 18. Section 3 of the DTVSV Act provides that where a declarant files a declaration before the designated authority in accordance with Section 4 of the DTVSV Act in respect of tax arrears then notwithstanding anything contained in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yable by the Assessee if its appeal, writ petition or special leave petition is decided against him. This clearly indicates that the expression "disputed tax" is the tax and other levy which is the subject matter of the pending appeal, writ petition or special leave petition. 23. The expression "appellant" is defined under Section 2 (1) (a) of the DTVSV Act. Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2 (1)(a) of the DTVSV Act, is relevant and the same is set out below: "2. Definitions. (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) "appellant" means-- (i) a person in whose case an appeal or a writ petition or special leave petition has been filed either by him or by the income-tax authority or by both, before an appellate forum and such appeal or petition is pending as on the specified date; (ii) a person in whose case an order has been passed by the Assessing Officer, or an order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in an appeal, or by the High Court in a writ petition, on or before the specified date, and the time for filing any appeal or special leave petition against such order by that person has not expired as on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id Sections provide that disputed tax for each appeal, writ petition or SLP is to be computed and, the disputed tax payable by the declarant is the amount as if such appeal, writ petition or SLP were to be decided against the assessee. Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act use the words "an appeal" and Section 2 (1) (j) of the Act uses the word "any appeal" both of which indicate that the unit for settlement of dispute under the provisions of DTVSV Act is an appeal or a writ petition or a SLP. The aforesaid position is further confirmed by the definition of "dispute" in Rule 2(b) of the DTVSV Rules, 2020 which defines each appeal, writ petition or SLP as a separate dispute for the purpose of computing disputed tax under Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the DTVSV Rules. This is also evident from the statutory Form No. 5 issued by the designated authority prescribed under the Rules where the Column No.3 records the detail of the 'Details of dispute settled (Appeal Reference Number)'. 35. The submission of the revenue that under the DTVSV Act the unit of settlement is an assessment year is contrary to its own stand as the Department has no grievance with the petitioner not settling the appeal filed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in clause (n) of Section 2 (1) of the DTVSV Act. The learned ITAT rendered the decision on 09.12.2019 and the Revenue had not filed its appeal (ITA No. 143/2021] prior to the specified date. Thus, the ambit of disputes must necessarily be construed on the basis of an appeal filed by the Revenue subsequently. 30. It is necessary to note that the DTVSV Act also contains provisions to address the question of disputes when an order has been passed by the AO, CIT(A), or the learned ITAT and the time for filing the appeal against the said order has not expired. In such cases, the person in whose case such an order has been passed would also fall within the meaning of the term "appellant" as defined under Section 2 (1)(a) of the DTVSV Act. In such cases, the disputed tax would amount to the tax payable by the appellant after giving effect to the order so passed. 31. It is also relevant to refer to the following clarification provided under the CBDT Circular dated 22.04.2020: "Question No. 36 In a case ITAT has passed order giving relief on two issues and confirming three issues. Time to file appeal has not expired as on specified date. The taxpayer wishes to file declaration for the ....