TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inter alia, prays as under: "a) issue a writ of and / or order and / or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent-Designated Authority to accept the Form-1 filed by the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and ; b) issue a writ of and / or order and / or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent-Designated Authority to issue Form-2 for the Assessment Year 2017-18." Prefatory facts 4. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of coding and marking equipments; manufacture and sale of consumables; sale of spares; and rendering of after sales services. The petitioner had incorporated a company in India named Domino Printech India Pvt. Ltd. [Domino India] on 16.05.1996 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Domino India was also engaged in the similar business that was carried out by the petitioner. 5. Domino India had issued 40,80,000 equity shares. The entire capital was subscribed by the petitioner - 40,79,998 (Forty Lacs Seventy-nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-eight) equity shares were held by the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2017-18, inter alia, calling upon the petitioner to file its return of income for the relevant assessment year. 13. Thereafter, on 30.01.2021, the petitioner voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs. 47,11,15,609/- with the Income Tax Authority under protest and without prejudice to its contentions that no tax was payable on account of supposed capital gains arising from conversion of equity shares of Domino India to a partnership interest in Domino LLP. 14. In compliance with the notice dated 13.01.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act, the petitioner filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 31.01.2021. 15. The proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice dated 13.01.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act culminated in an assessment order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the AO under Section 147 of the Act read with Section 144C (3) of the Act. The AO assessed the petitioner's income chargeable to tax as capital gains on account of conversion of equity shares of Domino India into partnership interest in Domino LLP, at Rs. 2,35,46,65,609/-. 16. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation and uploaded the reasons for the same on 20.02.2025. The same has led the petitioner to file the present petition. Rival Contentions 25. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the non-disclosure of the details of the pending writ petition before this court was neither essential nor material. He submitted that the writ petition would have been rendered infructuous on settlement of the appeal, which was pending before the learned CIT(A). Additionally, the petitioner had also furnished an undertaking that it would waive all rights whether indirect or direct to pursue any remedy. It was further contended that the prescribed Form 1 did not permit the declarant to refer two separate disputes, and therefore, once the petitioner had filled in the column "whether appeal/objection/revision/writ/SLP" by mentioning 'appeal' and the next column captioned "appellate forum JCIT(A) / CIT(A) / DRP / CIT/PCIT/ITAT /HC/SC" by referring to 'CIT(A)', the online form would not accept any other entry. Thus, in the revised declaration (Form No. 1), the petitioner had mentioned the details of writ petition in scheduled column. In the alternative, he submitted that the dispute pend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 2,35,46,65,609/- under LTCG. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which is pending. 3. The assessee opted for DTVSV 2024, and filed Form-1. Upon verification, it was observed that the assessee did not disclose the details pertaining to the pending writ petition in Form-1. There was hence incorrect disclosure of information regard pending appeals in Form-1. As per section 91 (5) of the DTVSV Act, a declaration shall be deemed invalid if any material particular furnished in the declaration is found to be false at any stage. 4. When this incorrect disclosure was reported by the AO in his report dated 31.01.2025 addressed to this office, the assessee filed letter dated 04.02.2025 stating that it would withdraw the writ petition upon issuance of Form-2 even though it was not declared in Form-1. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised Form-1 оп 07.02.2025 and also filed letter dated 08.02.2025 and email dated 19.02.2025. In the revised Form-1, the details regarding writ petition were declared. 5. The assessee submissions and revised Form-1 are carefully considered. As per CBDT Circular No. 19/2024 (FAQ no. 50) dated 16.12.2024, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. The declaration made by filing a revised Form-1 on 07.02.2025 is rejected for essentially two reasons. First, that the petitioner had not taken into account that the amount payable would be 110% of the disputed tax. And second, that the AAR had not determined the income arising out of capital gains, which is chargeable to tax; therefore, the dispute stemming from the decision of the AAR was not covered by the DTVSV Scheme. 29. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to Section 91 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, the same is set out below: "91. (1) The declaration referred to in section 90 shall be filed by the declarant before the designated authority in such form and verified in such manner, as may be prescribed. (2) Upon filing the declaration, any appeal pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or Commissioner (Appeals) or Joint Commissioner (Appeals), in respect of the disputed income or disputed interest or disputed penalty or disputed fee and tax arrear, shall be deemed to have been withdrawn from the date on which certificate under sub-section (1) of section 92 is issued by the designated authority. (3) Where the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the Designated Authority's view that the declaration furnished by the petitioner was liable to be rejected or ignored for failure to mention the pendency of the writ petition. The dispute whether the petitioner was liable to pay any tax on the notional capital gains arising from conversion of equity shares of Domino India to a partnership interest in Domino LLP had been fleshed out in the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 147 of the Act, which was subject matter of the petitioner's appeal before the CIT(A). Indisputably, the settlement of the said dispute would be dispositive of the petitioner's claim that no income chargeable to tax had arisen from extinguishment of the equity shares of Domino India and its conversion to a partnership interest in Domino LLP. Thus, not mentioning the pendency of the writ petition in the given facts could not be construed as failure to disclose a material fact, which would render the declaration made by the petitioner non-est under Section 91 (5) (a) of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024 or otherwise invalid. 32. It is also relevant to refer to the undertaking furnished by the petitioner, which was an integral part of the declaration ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. We are also unable to sustain the Designated Authority's finding that the date of petitioner's declaration is required to be construed as 07.02.2025 and not 23.12.2024. As held hereinbefore, the petitioner's declaration filed on 23.12.2024 could not be treated as non est and ignored. Thus, the Designated Authority was required to issue a certificate determining the amount payable by the declarant in accordance with the provisions of the DTVSV Scheme within fifteen days of the date of receipt of the declaration. Admittedly, no such order was passed by the Designated Authority within the period as prescribed under Section 92 (1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. 37. There is no cavil that the Designated Authority had refrained from passing such an order on account of its objections, including failure to mention that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was pending before this court, in the declaration. As observed earlier, we do not find the said non-disclosure to be material or of any significance in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 38. It is also not controverted that there was no specific space to mention an additional proceeding relating to the sam....