Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Clarifies: 'Delay in Filing Appeal Does Not Preclude Benefits Under Vivad Se Vishwas Act'"

31 December 2024 9:37 AM

By: sayum


Delhi High Court rules that taxpayers can still qualify for DTVSV scheme despite delayed appeal dismissal, provided the appeal window is open. In a significant judgment dated May 16, 2024, the Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition by PT Bukaka Teknik Utama, clarifying that taxpayers can avail the benefits of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act), even if their appeal was dismissed due to a delay, provided the window to file an appeal had not expired on the specified date. The court emphasized a liberal interpretation of the remedial statute to ensure it serves its intended purpose of resolving tax disputes.

PT Bukaka Teknik Utama, an Indonesian entity, filed its Income Tax Return for AY 2010-11 declaring a total income of ₹6,27,250. After scrutiny, the Assessing Officer passed a final assessment order on May 24, 2013, assessing the income at ₹1,69,68,210. The assessee’s appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was dismissed on January 1, 2020, due to a four-year delay. Following the introduction of the DTVSV Act, the assessee sought to settle the dispute under the scheme but faced rejection from the Revenue Department on grounds of ineligibility as no appeal was pending on the specified date.

The court highlighted the need for a liberal interpretation of remedial statutes like the DTVSV Act, which aims to resolve tax disputes and ensure timely tax collection. "Such statutes shall be read in a way to effectuate the intended objectives that the legislature envisaged while drafting the statute and to justifiably secure that the relief contemplated by the statute is not denied to the class intended to be relieved"​​.

The court noted that as per the DTVSV Act, either an appeal should be pending or the time limit for filing an appeal should not have expired as on the specified date (January 31, 2020). In PT Bukaka's case, the time limit to file an appeal against the CIT(A) order was still open on the specified date, making the assessee eligible to apply under the scheme. "It is not doubted by the Revenue that the time limit for filing the appeal against the CIT(A) order before the ITAT had not expired as on the specified date"​​.

The court clarified that the dismissal of an appeal by CIT(A) on the grounds of delay does not negate the existence of disputed tax arrears. "Once the CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground of being barred by limitation, the resultant effect of such an order would be confirmation of the assessment order so passed"​​. Thus, the assessee remains eligible under the DTVSV Act since the disputed tax arrears continue to exist.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the legislative intent behind the DTVSV Act, which seeks to resolve longstanding tax disputes and ensure efficient tax collection. It underscored that qualifications related to the pending status of appeals should not obstruct the remedial objectives of the Act. "It is of no significance whether the pending appeal merits consideration or is filed against an order, whereby, the dismissal was on the ground of being barred by limitation"​​.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated, "The DTVSV Act aspires to finally free the tax arrears locked in litigation combat for ages and ultimately ensures timely collection of tax"​​.

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to upholding the beneficial objectives of the DTVSV Act, providing clarity on the eligibility criteria for taxpayers seeking to resolve disputes under the scheme. The decision is expected to aid many taxpayers in similar situations, ensuring that procedural delays do not hinder the resolution of substantive tax disputes.

Date of Decision: 16th May 2024

 

Latest Legal News