AI Insights
The case revolves around the rejection of a petitioner's application for settlement of tax dues under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, had her application rejected by the designated authority, leading her to approach the High Court. The court found that the rejection was not preceded by any notice or hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the court noted that the reasons for rejection were almost identical to those in a previously set aside order, indicating a lack of proper reconsideration of the petitioner's case. The court directed a different designated authority to re-evaluate the application.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 739841 (HC-TELANGANA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
22-06-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"{1 [ 3311 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO:42835 0F 2022 Between: AND 1. 2. Vtr.49ilg [hatoon, Wife of Sri .Zutfi .Ravdjee, aged 67 years Resident of 8-2-4941501 , Road No. 7,Banjara Hiils, HyOeiibiO lsOo OS+ ...PET]TIONER The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. The Designated Authority under the Direct rax, Vivad se Vishwas Act,2o2o, o/o.The Principar chief commissioner of tn\"o.he iii, ii ro*\"ii, nvioioiir. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-6, lT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad. The Assistant Commissioner oJ lncome Tax, Circle 14 (.1 ) Room No 635, 6th Floor, C Block lT Towers, AC Guards UyOeraOiA SOOOb+ 3 4 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 ot rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High'c;rt ,ry -0. pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, prefJrabty a writ lri tne nature of Mandamus decraring the impugned proceedings (marked \". nnn.rrr\"-r !:ryjl!) of the 2ndresponderrt herein rejecting tne p-etiiioner'. \"ppri\"\"'ti* ot. 0310312021 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2o2o m bLing iil\"grr, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the constitution of lndia ano atsl be'ing contrary to the provisions of the said Act and clarifications issued oy tre Csbr g1d the order passed by the Honourabre rncome Tax Appeflate Tribunar, Hvderabad Bench-A dated 231o3t202't in lrA No. 131lHydl2bb.l ana as being against the order of this Honourable court in w.p. No. 2g250 ot 2021 dated 0610112022 and consequenfly set aside the same and direct the 2nd i\".ponJ\"nt to process the petitioners application dt. o3lo3l2o21 under Direct rax Vivad se Vishwas Act,2o2o and issue Form lll under the said Act to enable the petitioner to settle the dispute / tu lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent relecting the petitioners application dl 0310312021 under the Direct tax Vivad se Vishwas AcI, 2O2O pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENUGOPAL SR. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GA,DI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,3&4: SRI J.V.PRASAD SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPT The Court made the following: ORDER ' , HON'BLE THB CHIEF JIJSl'ICE UJJAL I]HIJYAN ANI) HON'llt.u sRt Jtist'l(-1. N. TtiKAR.AM.trl !VRIl' PETI'I'lON No.J2835 of 2022 ORDER : (Per Hon'ble the Chief ,lustk.e tljjat Bhuyan) I Ieard Mr. P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counse I for thc pctitioner; Mr. G.Praveen Kumar. learned Deputy Solicitor Gcncral ol India lor respondent No. l; and lvlr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel fbl Incorne'l'ax Depar-trrent lirr rcspondent Nos.2. 3 and 4. Bv way o1- this pctition illcci under Articlc ?26 of thir \"lt is therctble prayed that this lIon'ble Couft rnay be plcesed to issue any apprtrpriate Writ, Ordcr or direction, prefcrably a writ irr lhe naturc ol- Mandamus declaring the impugncd prc)cccdings (rnarked as Annexure-l herewith) ol- tl'rc lnd respondent herein rejecting the petitioncr's application dt.0,1.03.202 I under the Direct 'fax iivad se Vishwas Aci. 2020 as being illegal, arbitr-ar1,, violatire ol Alticle l4 of the Constitution of lndia and also being cor-rtlali' to the proi.,isions ot'thc said Act lnd clarifications issued by the CBD'I'and the order passccl by the Hon'ble Ittcome Constittrtioir ol-lndiai. petitioncl has praycd tbr the fbllo*,ing relicl 2 H( l li r'R. J tl. P. o.I )S t 5 o/ )0)) Tax Appetlatc fribunal. Hyderabad Uench-A dated 23.03.2021 in IfA No 13 t/l{yd/2021 and as beitrg against the order ol this LIon'ble Coun in W I'].No 28250 o1- 20ll dated 06'01 2021 and consequently set asidc the same and dircct the 2n'i respondent to process tl-re petitioner's application dt.03.0i.2021 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act' 2020 and issue Fortr Ilt under the said Act to cnable tl-rc petitiollcr to settle the dispute and pass such other ordcr or ordels as this FIon'ble Court may deem 1rt and proper in the circumstances of ihe case \" 3. Basic grievance of the petitioner peflains to rejection of her application dated 03.03.202 I lbr settlement of tax dtres under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishrvas Act,2020' The reasons lor rejection (undated) are as under: \" Rcason of Rejection From Irorm No. I and 2 filed by the assessee on 03-03- 2021 under DTVSVS it is seen that: A) As on'specified date i.e., 3l-03-2020, it is necessary that an appeal either should be pending or the time limit to file appeal as on 31-0l-2020 has not expired. The assessee failed to fulfill the above conclitions. B) Also, it is evident frorn Form I that the assessee filed the application against tl.re disputed interest. Ilowever, as all the appellale lorums ir-, ,tl tne three rortnds of proceedings, have t'avoured the assessee and at the time of frling of application under DTVSVS, there is no disputed tax and the question of / 3 I -'J tt(J&Ntft..l ll'. P. o.42835 of 2022 disputed intcrest does not arisc. C) F urrhe r. in the case of Sri Boddu Ramesh, Arrnor.. undcr similar clrcumstances, against the order. ol tlon'ble Iligh Court of Judicature at Hyder.abad dirccting the Depanment to issue Form No.3, the Depaftmenl his pref-erred an SLp before Hon'ble Supreme Courl rvhich ii pending in view of the above the apptication is hereby r.cjectcd.,, 4. Petitioner is an assessee under the Incorne .fax Act, I 961 (briefly \"the Act\" hereinafter). For the Assessment year 200g_09, the Assessing Officer i.e. respondent No.4 passcd an Assessrrent Order which was rectified on 05.03.2019 under Scction 154 of the Act. Against the Assessment Order as rectified, pe titioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3. Howevcr, by order dated 10.10.2019, the appeal was partly allowed. Assailing that part of the order of the first appellate authority i.e. respondent No.3, petitioner filed further appeal before the Income 1.ax Appellate Tribunal at Hyderabad on 24.02.2021 which was registered as I.T.A.No.l3llHyd/2020. In the meanwhile, Union of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 providing for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. f..- -l H( .t ti t.R,.t ll . t'. - o- I ) li.i 5 o I ) 0 ) -: 5. Sitrcc thcre was dcla'' ()f'(443) dsr'5 iu preierring ihc said irppcal befixc the lncome -l'ltx Appellate lribr-rnal' an application tbr condonation of clclal, u as fi led. when the appeal along ivith thc delay conclonatiou petition u'as taken up by the Income '[-ax ; ppellate I'ribunal, it rvas subrlitted on behalf of the petitioner that peritioncr would like to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. tn thar t'iew of the rnatter' Incomc I'a;< Appeltate Trit''unal by order dated 23 03'2021' condoned the delay in frling the appcal, whercalier' petitioner rvas granted liberty ttr u,ithdraw lhe appeal to ar,laii her remedy under the Direct l'ar Vivad se Vishwas Act Petitioner had in the meanrvhile filed declaration utrdet' the said Act on 03 '03 '2021 before respondent No.2. Hou'ever, by order dated 20'04 2021' the declaration was rejected 6. Aggrieved by such rejcction, petitioner l.rad approached this Coun earlier by filing W P'No 28250 of 2021 ' 'fhe writ petition was contcsted by the respondents by hling counter affidavit' Stand taken was that as on the spccifred date i.e. 30.01.2021, no appeal of the petitioncr was per-rcling before the Income -I'ax Appellate : 1i -/ ),, f, ( .t & . 7 R. ./ ll'. 1,.. o.,1 ) t -t -i o.f 2(D) Tribunal ('fribunal). T.hough the last date for filing the applicarion was extended to 04.12.2020. it was contended that even as on that date, there was no appeal pending. Therefore, petitioner was nor eligible to make the declaration. 7. Petitioner relied upon Circular No.2l/2020 issued b1 the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), more parlicularll,, upon the answer given to question No.59 and also on a coordinate Bench decision of this Court Boddu Ramesh Designa ted IN v Authorityr. 8. On behalf of the Revenue, it was contended that against the decision of this Court in Boddu Ramesh (supra), Itcvenue has preferred Special Leave petition to Appeal before the Supreme Court, though no stay was granted therein. 9. This Court, vide the judgment and order d,aLed,06.01.2022, extracted the rejection order dated 20.04.2021, which reads as follows: \"Application in claiming appeals Form I &2filed pending belore the on 03.03.2021 ITAT towards ' 437 rrR 32 I I i I i - .-1 6 1.I(./ .li . 1fl, ./ ll'. P. i|o.4lli-t 5 of )02) dispLrt,-:cl intcrest. lhe saicl appeals weT . .l1lcd. on :+.b:..:O: I ag.ainst the order ol the Clll'(A) datcd 10.10.10 19. As r.ro ,rppcal is pending as on specitied date i.e. 31 03.1020 arrd also as time to flte appeal is expired' the asscssee is rrot eli{rible and has to be treated as not a valici clcclarant ,,. p., I)-l rS Act, 2020 |-urther it is rloted that rvhile thc dispute in Form I & 2 is disputed int,:'rcst. rvhcrcas .t: 1le t the grotlnds o{' appeal filcd U.'fu,,. tn\" Cl l(r ) anci also I'I'A'I (fited a[ter specitrcd datc) thc dispute is otl lhe quantum of addition.and not o, i,r,.,..t portion. ; lso, in this case, the gror-rnds laised bclorc Cll-l iA) hai'e becn allorved in favour of assessee ancl no grcuncl arises firr appeal This application is an ott\"n.'1.,tio misuse Lhe p,ovisions of the VS Act to avoid pa),r-neut o1'cofirpr-rlsoly interest on u'hich no dispute ir.ir\", tn vic.'\" cf: the above, the application filed under D IVSV is hcrebY' Ril.ll1CTED'\" 9.l. Atler anal,vzirrg thc provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad se VishrvasAtr.2020andalsocluestionNo.5gandtheanswergiven thetelo as conlairred in CBDT Circular No21 of 2020 dated 04.12.2020. this Courl hcld as fbllows: 'l-his Clouft had thus taken the view that when the lncotre Tax Appellate Tribunal had accepted the application foi condonation of delay and had coirdoned the delay, the effect would be that the appeal befbre the lncome Tax Appetlate. Tribunal rvould be construed to have been filed within time and the lirnitation would relate back to the date by rvhich tinre the appeal against the order of the flrst appellate autholiL-v ought to have been filed' Once it is considcred that the appeal before the Income -lax Appcllate 'lribunal is deemed to have been \"-19. ' ,_. 3r. / ] t 7 HCJ .I , I'R, J ll'. P. t2.42X-1; ,,.1 2112;> filed within time, the same would bc constr.ued as having been filed before the sp.cifieJdui\" ,.ut i.t in turn would mean that the peiitioner *ouf a nuu\" to be construed to be an appellant as cletired in Section 2(l)(a) (i) of the Vivacl Se Vishwas nct. 40. I'hough leamed counsel for the Revenuc submits that Special Leave petition t,as b\".n p..t.\"..ea against the said decision of the coordinar! Sench, but he fairly concedes that there i, \". .,ry _a\". 41. t^1s9far the present case is concerned, petitione.r filed her declaration on 03.03.202i-*[i.n *u, belore rhe lasr exrended art\" fori,ting O\".Lrr,lo, i.e., 31.03.202i But, U.iir.\" oi.oi:O:t, tf.r\" appeal was filed by the petitioner- O\"-tU,\" tfr\" Income Tax Appellate Trilunal .\" ii.'.il.r02, along with an application f\", \"\"\"a\"rri., \"r delay. The delay was condoned o, zi.o:fir on which date the appeal was also aior*,i \"i considering the submission of ,r,. p\"iiulr.i ,rru, she would file declaration ,.rd\". ii,\"\"Virlo S\" Vishwas Act which was not oU:.\"i\"a to'f,u *,\" 42. On due consideration, we are in agreement with the view taken by the coordinate ei\"\";j;'i;\"aa, Ramesh .(.1 supra) more particularly to those expressed in paragraph Nos.40 and +: ihereoi 43. fhat apaft, we find that rejection of the declaration was not preceded by uny nn,i.. or^ hearing. Though such notice \", fr.\"'.ir*\"i.'\"* provided under Section 5 of the ViuuJ .\"'?iri*u, Acr, it is axiomatic that princifle, \"f'rlr*f justice, which is the very essence of faimess, demands rhat before an adverse decision i;-;;k\"\" affecting the rights and tiabilities \"i r, \"eg.[\"\"d ''! E;-_Ji.-- i I 8 I tcJ <& . TIt. J ll'.P. o.428-t5 rrJ 2t)2 ) 1+ pcrsr)n. lrc ()ught to be pul on noticc and giveri an opponttrrit) o1' llcaring. -l he sarne having not been done rn thc present case, the impugr-rcd decision sLLf 1cr-s lionr r iolation ol the principles of natural .justice lrlrich is one more reason why we are constrainecl to intet'fere with the same. Acculdirglr', wc set aside the irnpugned order datcd 10.0:1.1021 passed by respondent no'2 lc.jectiL.rg the declaration/application of thc pe1 itionel dated 03.03.2021 for settlement ol tax ilucs ,-'r,der the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2i)20 ancl rcmand the mattet'back to the authority lor- Laking a liesh decision in accordance with larr . Since rhe present designated authority has already discloscd his mind on the merit of the declaration ir.r tlrc inrpugned order dated 2O-04.2021, we direct the jurisdictional Principal Chief C<,rnmissioner of Income Tax to assign another dcsignatecl authority to deal with the declaration of the petitioner. Let a fresh decision be taken by thc neu clesignated authority on the declaration of the petitionet within a period of eight (08) weeks 1l-onr thc date ol receipt of a copy ol tl.ris order.\" ,1.5 g.2. l'hus. this Cotrrl. agreeing with the earlier decision in Boddu Ramesh (supra) and also observing that rejection of the declaration was nol preceded by'any notice or hearing, set aside the order dated 20 .O4.2OZ1 ancl renr anded the matter back to the authority for taking a lresh decision. While remanding the matter, this Coutt lufiher observecl that the designated authority who had passed the l l ' 9 1 rt(J& t.J lt'. P. . :o.,1) 8.1 5 ol )tD2 order dared 20.04.2021, had already discloscd his mind on the merits 01 the declaration and thcrelore directed thc jurisdicfional I'rincipal Chiel Commissioner of Income '['ax to assign another designated authority to deal with the declaration of the petitioner. 10. It was thereafter that the impugned undated order came to be passed which we have already noted above I I . Respondents have fi led counler affidavit virlually reiterating the stand hken in the earlier proceedings. 12. From the undated reasons for rejection of the declaration of the petitioner as extracted supra, we frnd that the same is almost identical to the reasons dated 20.04.2021 which we have also extracted above and which was set aside.by this court in the earlier round of titigation. The respondents, more particularly respondent No.2, have not considered the declaration of the petitioner as directed by this Court vide the judgment and order dated 06.01 .2022. That apart, mere filing of Special Leave petition ro Appeal before the Supreme Court without any stay can be no ground for rejection of the declaration ofthe petitioner. ,:.; 7 I ; I l ; I i Lr{ ,; I (I do the necdfirl itl ac ci't'dilnr: '-: n'lth law Il(.1 & lR ll.t'-, 'o.4 28-i 5 trl )tl I his shall he dorrc ',r itltin :r ): I3. ln thc tiictttt'tsl.ittl'.c: :rrrti liLlou'ing [hc 'juclunrent aud order ol this Cor.rrL tlated 0(r.t)1.)r-i.'l passcd in W P'No'28250 o1'202 I' wc set asioe thc ull.diltc(l ordcr o1' tejection iLtrd direct respondenr N,r.l to talic orr hoirrd the declaration ol the petitronet ciated 01.0-1.11021 iincl consider' the same as a valid declaration under thc Dir.:ct J.ax .ir,ad sc Vishwas Act,,2o20 and tlrerealter trr period of sir' 'r'ccl
Other Referred Cases
Boddu Ramesh vs. Designated Authority
Laws Referred To
Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
Non-Compete Agreement
₹0
Startup Valuation Certificate
₹0
From Endless Revisions to Timely Compliance: The New Era of TDS/TCS Rectification
Team Counselvise - January 30, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026