TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). For the Respondent(s) No. 1,2: Notice Served. ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI) 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 3. The issue involved in both the petitions is identical and therefore, they have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule on behal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g drawn and vexatious litigation process, DTVSV Scheme, 2024 was notified with effect from 1.10.2024. The Rules under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024 have been notified on 20.09.2024. 10. Under section 97 of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued Guidance Note No.1/2024 in form of answers to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) vide Circular No. 12 of 2024 dated 15.10.2024. Thereafter, Guidance Note No. 2/2024 was issued on 16.12.2024 and following FAQ NO.36 was inserted in place of FAQ NO.8 of Guidance Note No.1/2024 which reads as under: S.No. Issue Comments Eligibility of cases 36 Suppose a taxpayer is eligible to apply for DTVSV Scheme, 2024 as his appeal is pending as on 22.7.2024. But subsequentl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orm-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. 13.1. 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. In the instant case, the appeal is still pending. 13.2. It was therefore, submitted that even if the appeal is held to be non maintainable by CIT(Appeals) subsequently, after 22.07.2024, the petitioner would be eligible fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As per section 90 of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, a declarant assessee has to pay the tax as on 1st day of January, 2025. The date of computation of tax payable was further extended by Circular No. 20/2024 dated 30.12.2024 from 31^st December, 2024 to 31st January, 2025 and in view of Notification dated 8.04.2025, the last date of the Scheme was notified as the 30th day of April, 2025. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed a declaration under section 90(1) read with section 91(4) of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024 in Form-1 on the ground that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the CIT(Appeals) which was filed on 18.04.2024 is still pending as on the specified date i.e. 22.07.2024 as per the provisions of section 89(1)(n) of Finance (No. 2) Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tween appeals, revisions and references. However, those differences were obliterated and appeals, revisions and references were put on par under section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme. The object behind section 95(i)(c) in putting on par appeals, references and revisions was to put an end to litigation in various forms and at various stages under the IT Act/Wealth Tax Act and, therefore, the rulings on the scope of appeals and revisions under the IT Act or on Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, will not apply to this case. 15. In the case of Dr. Mrs. Renuka Delta (supra), this Court has held on interpretation of section 95(i)(c) that if the appeal or revision is pending on the date of the filing of the declaration under section 88 of the Scheme, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lar 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." 19. In case of Bhaskar Manubhai Mehta (supra), it was held by this Court that if delay occurred in filing an a....