TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tanding Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent in the respective petitions. 5. For the sake of convenience, facts are recorded from Special Civil Application No. 10560 of 2025. 6. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside order dated 11.04.2025 rejecting the declaration made by the petitioner under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (For short "the DTVSV Scheme, 2024"). 7. The petitioner filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 which was the subject to the assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short "the Act") dated 05.12.2019 making addition of Rs. 30,80,770/-. 8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority along with application to condone the delay on 29.05.2023. Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner was pending as on 22.07.2024 which is the specified date as per provisions of section 89(1)(n) of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024. 9. By Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, the DTVSV Scheme, 2024 came into force as per Chapter IV from se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection (4) of section 91 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024 wherein the petitioner stated that appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was pending as on 22.07.2024. However the respondent Designated Authority rejected the declaration of the petitioner on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner was held to be non maintainable and therefore, the same was not a valid appeal and accordingly, the petitioner was held to be ineligible for the benefits of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024. 13. Learned Advocate Mr. Sudhir Mehta for the petitioner submitted that the eligibility criteria for filing declaration in Form-1 under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024 is that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the CIT(Appeals) should be pending on the specified date i.e. 22.07.2024. 14. It was submitted that as per FAQ No.36 which is inserted by Guidance Note No. 2/2024 dated 16.12.2024, CBDT has clarified that the assessee would be eligible for settlement under the Scheme as the appeal was pending as on 22.07.2024 and the disputed tax will be calculated in the same manner as if the appeal pending on 22.07.2024 is yet to be disposed of though appeal would have been disposed of on m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was pending as on the specified date i.e. 22.07.2024 as per the provisions of section 89(1)(n) of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. 21. In case of Tushar Agro Chemicals(supra), this Court has held as under: "10. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shatrusailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja, relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani, in which the S.C. had an occasion to deal with the issue, as to whether, the department could have rejected the Declaration filed under the similar scheme called Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, introduced vide the Finance [No. 2] Act 1998, on the ground that the Revision / Appeal filed by the concerned Petitioner was time barred or was not valid. In the said case, the Supreme Court considered the object of the said Scheme as also the other earlier decisions, and observed as under: "13. In our view, the Scheme was in substance a recovery scheme though it was nomenclatured as a "litigation settlement scheme" and was not similar to the earlier Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. As stated above, the said Scheme was a complete Code by itself. Its object was to put an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al though irregular and incompetent." 11. In view of the aforestated legal position, there remains no shadow of doubt that appeal could be said to be pending, even if the delay occurred in filing the same was not condoned and even if it was allegedly irregular or incompetent. In the instant case therefore also, the Respondent could not have rejected the Declaration Form of the Petitioner filed under the said Act merely on the ground that the Appeal was not valid or competent, as the delay occurred in filing the Appeal was not condoned by the Appellate Authority. In the opinion of the Court, the Respondent had to only take into consideration, as to whether, the Petitioner had filed an Appeal, and the same was pending on the 'specified date' i.e. 31.1.2020. It was not for the Respondent to decide, as to whether, such Appeal was irregular or incompetent or invalid in the eye of law." 22. In case of Atul Roshanlal Gupta(supra), it was held by this Court as under: "7. In view of the above provisions of the VSV Act, it emerges that the petitioner has to be an appellant so as to be eligible on the specified date i.e. 31st January, 2020 to file declaration under Sectio....