YouTuber Advocate Guilty Of Criminal Contempt For Posting Scandalous Banners Targeting Named Judicial Officers: Delhi High Court Official Car Of Judicial Officer Not 'Means Of Public Transportation' Under PDPP Act; Kerala High Court Quashes Case Against Bus Driver Tenant Evicted For Rent Default Despite Claims Of Adjustment Toward Municipal Taxes; Rebuilding Ground Rejected For Want Of Genuine Need: Calcutta High Court Common Intention Can Be Formed On Spot Through Exhortation & Conduct; Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction In 1984 Murder Case Acquittal In Criminal Trial Does Not Automatically Mandate Reinstatement; Departmental Findings On Misconduct Stand: Allahabad High Court Father Entitled To Custody Of 13-Month-Old Child; Death Of Mother During Failed IVF No Ground To Deny Natural Guardian's Claim: Allahabad High Court Accused Exonerated By ICC Has Statutory Right To Appeal Against Findings Under Section 18 POSH Act: Bombay High Court Singular Default In Appearance Does Not Justify Dismissal Of NI Act Complaint; Magistrate Must Exercise Discretion Judicially: Himachal Pradesh High Court Delay In Passing Preventive Detention Order To Be Calculated From Receipt Of Formal Proposal, Not Preliminary Police Report: Jharkhand High Court Education Of Child Cannot Be Compromised: Kerala High Court Grants Interim Custody To Maternal Aunt For Schooling In United Kingdom "No Caste No Religion" Certificate: Madras High Court Directs Authority To Issue Certificate To Actor Radhakrishnan Parthiban Non-Availability Of CCTV Footage Of Incident Inside Police Station Is Ground To Draw Adverse Inference Against Delinquent Officers: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismissal Of Co-Defendant’s Appeal For Non-Prosecution Operates As Res Judicata Against Remaining Appellants: Himachal Pradesh High Court Board Consultation Mandatory Before Withholding Pension Of Retired Employee Under General Insurance Pension Scheme: Delhi High Court Simultaneous Pursuit Of Two Qualifications Not A Ground For Termination In Absence Of Statutory Bar: Allahabad High Court Trade Marks Act Makes No Distinction Between House Marks And Trade Marks: Bombay High Court IBC Is Not a Recovery Tool: Supreme Court Halts Insolvency Proceedings Against Solvent Company, Directs Decree-Holder to Pursue Execution

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