Manohar Lal Poddar, Son Of Late Hari Lal Poddar, Resident + P.o.- Sanhoula,P.s.- Sanhoula, Dist.- Bhagalpur v. Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance Through Assessing Officer Cumassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3, Patna.assistant Commissioner Of Income

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.215 of 2025 ====================================================== Manohar Lal Poddar, Son of Late Hari Lal Poddar, Resident + P.O.- Sanhoula,P.S.- Sanhoula, Dist.- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1.Union of India, Ministry of Finance through Assessing Officer cumAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3, Patna.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3, Patna. 2.Principal Commissioner, Income Tax (Central), Patna. 3.Assessing Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3,Patna.Patna. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :For the Petitioner: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate Dr. Ajit Kumar Pathak, AdvocateFor the Respondents: Ms. Archana Sinha, Senior SC Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEYORAL JUDGMENT(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Date : 07-07-2025 Heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. Archana Sinha, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Department of Income Tax (respondents). 2. This writ application has been filed seeking thefollowing reliefs:- “I. That, order passed in Revision No. PCIT(Central),Patna/Revision-264/100000509032/2023 dt.30.01.24 passed byRespondent No.2 may kindly be quashed andset aside. II. That, since Respondents have issuedcertificate in the prescribed form 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act 2020 Act,petitioner further prays for holding thatRespondent No.2 has no right to reopen aproceeding duly set at rest long back on5.11.21, by the order of competent authority inthe 1[st] round of litigation. III. That, Respondents may further be directedto refund Rs.4,81,087/- excess amount ofdisputed tax, ordered to be refunded in 1[st]round of litigation, with statutory interest, tobe calculated from the date of issuance ofcertificate in Form 5 of the Direct Tax Vivadse Vishwas Act 2020, dt.5.11.21 to the day ofits final disbursement in favour of petitioner. IV. That, be further held that the ordercontained in Form 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad seVishwas Act 2020 has already attendedfinality, and as such, respondents have no otheroption rather to accept the order passed in 1[st]round of litigation under the said Act. V. That, for any other relief(s) for whichpetitioner is found entitled on the facts of thiscase and also in the eye of law. Brief Facts of the Case 3. From the narrations present in the writ application, itappears that at one point of time, pursuant to seizure of cashamount of Rs.19.10 lakh from a collection agent of the petitioner,a warrant under Section 132(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) was issued on28.10.2016. In a proceeding under Section 143(3) read with Section 153-B of the Act of 1961, an order dated 19.12.2018 waspassed whereby the total income of the petitioner was assessed atRs.18,08,450/- (excluding agriculture income for rate purpose ofRs.1,75,590/-). This was against the returned income ofRs.2,88,577/-. The authorities of the Department also found thatthere were unexplained income of Rs.12 lakh and unexplainedinvestment of Rs.2,23,339/-. This led to a net tax demand ofRs.5,88,457/- for which a notice under Section 156 dated19.12.2018 was served upon the petitioner. Section 153-B of the Act of 1961, an order dated 19.12.2018 waspassed whereby the total income of the petitioner was assessed atRs.18,08,450/- (excluding agriculture income for rate purpose ofRs.1,75,590/-). This was against the returned income ofRs.2,88,577/-. The authorities of the Department also found thatthere were unexplained income of Rs.12 lakh and unexplainedinvestment of Rs.2,23,339/-. This led to a net tax demand ofRs.5,88,457/- for which a notice under Section 156 dated19.12.2018 was served upon the petitioner. 4. As the petitioner disputed the assessment andapproached the Appellate Forum, during pendency of the appeal, alegislation, namely, the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2020’) came into effect. Itwas a legislation providing for resolution of disputed tax and formatters connected therewith or incidental thereto. According tosub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act of 2020, upon filing of thedeclaration referred to in Section 3 before the designated authority,any appeal pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orCommissioner (Appeals), in respect of the disputed income ordisputed interest or disputed penalty or disputed fee and tax arrearshall be deemed to have been withdrawn from the date on whichcertificate under sub-section (1) of Section 5 was issued by the designated authority. By virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 5 ofthe Act of 2020, every order passed under sub-section (1),determining the amount payable under this Act, shall be conclusiveas to the matters stated therein and no matter covered by suchorder shall be reopened in any other proceeding under the IncomeTax Act or under any other law for the time being in force or underany agreement, whether for protection of investment or otherwise,entered into by India with any other country or territory outsideIndia. The Explanation to sub-section (3) of Section 5 states asunder:- “5. Time and manner of payment.- &(3) Explanation.For the removal of doubts, itis hereby clarified that making a declarationunder this Act shall not amount to concedingthe tax position and it shall not be lawful forthe income-tax authority or the declarant beinga party in appeal or writ petition or specialleave petition to contend that the declarant orthe income-tax authority, as the case may be,has acquiesced in the decision on the disputedissue by settling the dispute.” 5. On facts, it is an admitted position that the petitionerapplied before the designated authority under the Act of 2020 andthe designated authority concluded the proceeding as also issued acertificate in Form-5. A copy of the certificate in Form-5 issued on 05 November, 2021 has been brought on record as Annexure- ‘P-1’to the writ application. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner paid the entire amount butthe grievance of the petitioner is that since the petitioner wasentitled for a refund and the Department was not refunding theexcess amount of tax paid by the petitioner, the petitioner waspursuing his claim before the competent authority. In thisconnection, the e-mail receipts and the petitions sent by the presentpetitioner to the authorities of the Department have been enclosedwith the writ petition as Annexure ‘P-2’. 7. At this stage, the petitioner found a communication bywhich not only the claim of the petitioner for refund of excessamount was eventually rejected but the petitioner was alsosubjected to a proceeding under Section 154 of the Act of 1961which was instituted by the Assessing Officer on 14.03.2023. Thepetitioner was noticed with a new demand by saying that onaccount of miscalculation apparent from the record, thecomputation of tax demand could not be calculated properly. TheAssessing Officer alleged that despite the disputed tax demandalready settled earlier, there are two more additional demands,totaling Rs.14,77,200/- under Section 69/69A for which taxliability will be charged at the rate of 60% under Section 115-BBE 7. At this stage, the petitioner found a communication bywhich not only the claim of the petitioner for refund of excessamount was eventually rejected but the petitioner was alsosubjected to a proceeding under Section 154 of the Act of 1961which was instituted by the Assessing Officer on 14.03.2023. Thepetitioner was noticed with a new demand by saying that onaccount of miscalculation apparent from the record, thecomputation of tax demand could not be calculated properly. TheAssessing Officer alleged that despite the disputed tax demandalready settled earlier, there are two more additional demands,totaling Rs.14,77,200/- under Section 69/69A for which taxliability will be charged at the rate of 60% under Section 115-BBE of the Act of 1961. It will be in addition to 30% amount chargedunder Section 143(3) read with 153-B dated 19.12.2018. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that anotice under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 was issued to thepetitioner on 24.03.2023. The petitioner appeared before theAssessing Officer with proper explanation but according to him,his explanations were not considered and have been rejectedmechanically. A revision preferred by the petitioner underSection 264 of the Act of 1961 also failed. 9. While assailing the order of the Assessing Officer aswell as the revisional order as contained in Annexures ‘P-3’ and‘P-3/1’ to the writ application, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh,learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a declarationunder Section 5 of the Act of 2020 was issued by the designatedauthority under the said Act, the Assessing Officer could nothave invoked his powers under Section 154 of the Act of 1961to unsettle the order passed by the designated authority underthe Act of 2020. He has submitted that the legislative intentbehind bringing the Act of 2020 was to put at rest any disputewhich could have been otherwise resolved in terms of theprovisions of the Act of 2020. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act of 2020 has been couched in a very wide words and a barereading of the same would show that no matter covered by theorder under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 2020would be reopened in any other proceeding under the IncomeTax Act or under any other law for the time being in force. 10. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention ofthis Court towards Section 154 of the Act of 1961, particularlyclause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 154, which clearlyindicates the scope and ambit of the exercise of power by theAssessing Officer under this provision. It is submitted thatrectification of mistake as envisaged under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 154 is limited to amending any orderpassed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of the Actof 1961. By no stretch of imagination, the scope of thisprovision may be extended to amend an order/declaration issuedby the designated authority under the Act of 2020. 11. Learned counsel has relied upon a Division Benchjudgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SANGarments Manufacturing Private Limited Vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax 7 and Another reported in 2024SCC OnLine Del 9066. It is submitted that in the said case, interms of Section 5 of the Act of 2020, the designated authority 11. Learned counsel has relied upon a Division Benchjudgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SANGarments Manufacturing Private Limited Vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax 7 and Another reported in 2024SCC OnLine Del 9066. It is submitted that in the said case, interms of Section 5 of the Act of 2020, the designated authority issued a certificate in Form No.3 dated 16.10.2020 determiningthe balance amount payable as Rs.69,56,571/-. Thereafter, thedesignated authority issued a certificate in Form No. 5 in termsof Rule 7 of the Rules of 2020 under Section 5(2) read withSection 6 of the Act of 2020. The same authority, however, onceagain wanted to reopen the concluded settlement and for thispurpose issued a fresh Form No. 3 dated 29.01.2021 which wasfound to be a modified version of the earlier Form No. 3 dated16.10.2020. The Hon’ble Division Bench of the Delhi HighCourt held that a plain reading of the provisions of the Act of2020 indicates that once a final certificate is issued underSection 5(1) of the Act, all disputes with regard to the ‘taxarrear’ stands concluded. The Hon’ble High Court, therefore, setaside the certificate dated 29.01.2021 and allowed the writpetition. 12. It is submitted that if the designated authorityunder the Act of 2020 could not have reopened its own order, itcannot be allowed to be argued by the respondents that anAssessing Officer under the Act of 1961 would be competent toset at naught a settlement order/reopen the proceeding, in thegarb of exercise of its power under Section 154 of the Act of1961. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents 13. Ms. Archana Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counselfor the Department has contested the writ application. LearnedSenior Standing Counsel would submit that no doubt, thepetitioner paid a sum of Rs.5,88,457/- which was the disputed taxand Form-5 under the Act of 2020 was issued in this case on05.11.2021 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Patna, it would remain open for the Assessing Officer toexercise his power under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 if anyerror apparent on the record in computation of the disputed taxdemand is found. 14. Learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that as thetwo additions totaling to Rs.14,77,200/- were made under Section69/69A of the Act of 1961 for which tax liability was to be chargedat the rate of 60% as per provisions of Section 115-BBE of the Actof 1961 as against 30% calculated vide order under Section 143(3)read with Section 153-B dated 19.12.2018, the Assessing Officerrightly issued notice under Section 154 on 24.02.2023. 15. Learned Senior Standing Counsel, therefore, submitsthat a fresh demand of Rs.8,87,283/- as against Rs.5,88,447/- is inaccordance with law. 16. Learned Senior Standing Counsel has further reliedupon a Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 9 of 2020 dated22.04.2020 which contains Frequently Asked Questions (in short‘FAQs’). Attention of this Court has been drawn towards QuestionNo. 46 of the FAQs. It is submitted that the Circular empowers theDepartmental authority to rectify apparent mistake in the orderunder Section 5 of the Act of 2020. It is her submission that theorder passed by the revisional authority under Section 264 of theAct of 1961 is in accordance with law and needs no interference. Consideration 17. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner andlearned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department. The facts areadmitted to the effect that there was an assessment under Section143(3) read with Section 153-B of the Act of 1961 in which theassessment order dated 19.12.2018 was passed. The petitioner wasassessed at Rs.18,08,450 (excluding agriculture income for ratepurpose of Rs.175590/-) against his returned income ofRs.2,88,577/-. A demand of Rs.5,88,457/- was raised against thepetitioner for which a notice under Section 156 dated 19.12.2018was served upon the petitioner. Consideration 17. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner andlearned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department. The facts areadmitted to the effect that there was an assessment under Section143(3) read with Section 153-B of the Act of 1961 in which theassessment order dated 19.12.2018 was passed. The petitioner wasassessed at Rs.18,08,450 (excluding agriculture income for ratepurpose of Rs.175590/-) against his returned income ofRs.2,88,577/-. A demand of Rs.5,88,457/- was raised against thepetitioner for which a notice under Section 156 dated 19.12.2018was served upon the petitioner. 18. It is further admitted that the petitioner challengedthe assessment and approached the Appellate Forum but during pendency of the appeal, the Act of 2020 came into force. Thepetitioner applied under the scheme framed by virtue of theprovisions contained under the Act of 2020 which is in the natureof a statutory scheme. The petitioner opted to avail the beneficialscheme provided by the Act of 2020. The designated authorityunder the said act entertained the application of the petitioner andbased on the pleadings and admission, in presence of both theparties, a certificate of closure of proceeding was issued videAnnexure ‘P-1’ to the writ application. The petitioner had alreadypaid an amount which was in excess of Rs.5,88,457/-, therefore, anorder of refund of Rs.4,81,087/- was issued in favour of thepetitioner. 19. The dispute arose only when the petitioner pursuedhis claim for refund. For about one and half year, his refunds werenot made available. Petitioner has brought on record his e-mailsand petition dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure ‘P-2’). From thepleadings, it is found that the Assessing Officer registered aproceeding under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 on 22.12.2022.This time the Assessing Officer claimed that despite the disputedtax amount already settled before, there are two more additionaldemands, totaling Rs. 14,77,200/- under Section 69/69A, forwhich tax liability will be charged at the rate of 60% under Section 115-BBE of the Act of 1961. It will be in addition to 30% amountcharged under Section 143(3) read with 153-B dated 19.12.2018. Itis this order of the Assessing Officer which is said to be withoutthe jurisdiction and it has been contended that the AssessingOfficer has acted beyond its authority in exercise of power underSection 154 of the Act of 1961. 20. At this stage, we reproduce Section 154 of the Act of 1961:- “154. Rectification of mistake.- [3][(1) With aview to rectifying any mistake apparent fromthe record an income-tax authority referred toin section 116 may,- (a)amend any order passed by it under theprovisions of this Act; 4[(b)amend any intimation or deemed intimationunder sub-section (1) of section 143.] 5[(c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) ofsection 200-A;] 6[(d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) ofsection 206CB. 7[(1-A) Where any matter has been consideredand decided in any proceeding by way ofappeal or revision relating to an order referredto in sub-section (1), the authority passingsuch order may, notwithstanding anythingcontained in any law for the time being inforce, amend the order under that sub-sectionin relation to any matter other than the matterwhich has been so considered and decided.] 3. Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, S.60, for sub-S.(1) (w.e.f. 1-4-1989). 4. Substituted by Act 27 of 1999, S. 65, for Cl. (b) (w.e.f. 1-6-1999). 5. Inserted by Act 23 of 2012, S. 70 (w.e.f. 1-7-2012). 6. Inserted by Act 20 of 2015, S. 38 (w.e.f 1-6-2015). 7. Inserted by Act 31 of 1964, S. 7 (w.e.f. 6-10-1964). (2)Subject to the other provisions of thissection, the authority concerned- (a)may make an amendment under sub-section (1)of its own motion, and 3. Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, S.60, for sub-S.(1) (w.e.f. 1-4-1989). 4. Substituted by Act 27 of 1999, S. 65, for Cl. (b) (w.e.f. 1-6-1999). 5. Inserted by Act 23 of 2012, S. 70 (w.e.f. 1-7-2012). 6. Inserted by Act 20 of 2015, S. 38 (w.e.f 1-6-2015). 7. Inserted by Act 31 of 1964, S. 7 (w.e.f. 6-10-1964). (2)Subject to the other provisions of thissection, the authority concerned- (a)may make an amendment under sub-section (1)of its own motion, and (b)shall make such amendment for rectifying anysuch mistake which has been brought to its notice8[by the assessee, or by the deductor,] 6 [or by thecollector] and where the authority concerned is the9[* * *] 10[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or theCommissioner (Appeals)], by the [11][AssessingOfficer] also.12[* * *] (3) An amendment, which has the effect ofenhancing an assessment or reducing a refundor otherwise increasing the liability of [8][theassessee or the deductor], [6][or the collector]shall not be made under this section unless theauthority concerned has given notice to [8][ theassessee or the deductor] [6][or the collector] ofits intention so to do and has allowed [1][theassessee or the deductor] [2][or the collector] areasonable opportunity of being heard. (4)Where an amendment is made under thissection, an order shall be passed in writing bythe income-tax authority concerned. 3[(5) Where any such amendment has theeffect of reducing the assessment or otherwisereducing the liability of the assessee or thedeductor, [2][or the collector] the AssessingOfficer shall make any refund which may bedue to such assessee or the deductor [2][or the collector].] 8. Substituted by Act 23 of 2012, S. 70, for certain words (w.e.f. 1-7-2012). 6. Inserted by Act 20 of 2015, S. 38 (w.e.f 1-6-2015). 9. Certain words omitted by Act 21 of 1998, S. 65 (w.e.f. 1-10-1998). 10. Substituted by Act 8 of 2023, S. 76, for certain words (w.e.f. 1-4-2023). 11. Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, S.2, for “Income-tax Officer” (w.e.f. 1-4-1988). 12. Proviso omitted by Act 32 of 1994, S. 38 (w.e.f. 1-6-1994). 1. Substituted by Act 23 of 2012, S. 70, for certain words (w.e.f. 1-7-2012). 2. Inserted by Act 20 of 2015, S. 38 (w.e.f. 1-6-2015). 3. Substituted by Act 23 of 2012, S. 70, for sub-S. (5) (w.e.f. 1-7-2012). (6)Where any such amendment has the effectof enhancing the assessment or reducing arefund [1][already made or otherwise increasingthe liability of the assessee or the deductor,2[or the collector] the Assessing Officer shallserve on the assessee or the deductor, [2][or thecollector] as the case may be] a notice ofdemand in the prescribed form specifying thesum payable, and such notice of demand shallbe deemed to be issued under section 156 andthe provisions of this Act shall applyaccordingly. (7)Save as otherwise provided in section 155or sub-section (4) of section 186, noamendment under this section shall be madeafter the expiry of four years [4][from the end ofthe financial year in which the order sought tobe amended was passed]. 5[(8) Without prejudice to the provisions ofsub-section (7), where an application foramendment under this section is made [1][by theassessee or by the deductor] [2][or by thecollector] on or after the 1[st] day of June, 2001to an income-tax authority referred to in sub-section (1), the authority shall pass an order,within a period of six months from the end ofthe month in which the application is receivedby it,- (a)making the amendment; or (b)refusing to allow the claim.]” 1. Substituted by Act 23 of 2012, S. 70, for certain words (w.e.f. 1-7-2012). 2. Inserted by Act 20 of 2015, S. 38 (w.e.f. 1-6-2015). 4. Substituted by Act 67 of 1984, S. 29, for “from the date of the order sought to be amended” (w.e.f. 1- 10-1984). 5. Inserted by Act 14 of 2001, S. 65 (w.e.f. 1-6-2001). 21. We would also take note of the relevant provisionssuch as Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act of 2020 as under:- (a)making the amendment; or (b)refusing to allow the claim.]” 1. Substituted by Act 23 of 2012, S. 70, for certain words (w.e.f. 1-7-2012). 2. Inserted by Act 20 of 2015, S. 38 (w.e.f. 1-6-2015). 4. Substituted by Act 67 of 1984, S. 29, for “from the date of the order sought to be amended” (w.e.f. 1- 10-1984). 5. Inserted by Act 14 of 2001, S. 65 (w.e.f. 1-6-2001). 21. We would also take note of the relevant provisionssuch as Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act of 2020 as under:- “4. Filing of declaration and particulars tobe furnished.-(1) The declaration referred to insection 3 shall be filed by the declarant beforethe designated authority in such form andverified in such manner as may be prescribed.(2) Upon the filing the declaration, any appealpending before the Income Tax AppellateTribunal or Commissioner (Appeals), in respectof the disputed income or disputed interest ordisputed penalty or disputed fee and tax arrearshall be deemed to have been withdrawn fromthe date on which certificate under sub-section(1) of section 5 is issued by the designatedauthority. (3) Where the declarant has filed any appealbefore the appellate forum or any writ petitionbefore the High Court or the Supreme Courtagainst any order in respect of tax arrear, heshall withdraw such appeal or writ petition withthe leave of the Court wherever required afterissuance of certificate under sub-section (1) ofsection 5 and furnish proof of such withdrawalalongwith the intimation of payment to thedesignated authority under sub-section (2) ofsection 5. (4) Where the declarant has initiated anyproceeding for arbitration, conciliation ormediation, or has given any notice thereofunder any law for the time being in force orunder any agreement entered into by India withany other country or territory outside Indiawhether for protection of investment or otherwise, he shall withdraw the claim, if any,in such proceedings or notice after issuance ofcertificate under sub-section (1) of section 5and furnish proof of such withdrawal alongwiththe intimation of payment to the designatedauthority under sub-section (2) of section 5.(5) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), the declarant shallfurnish an undertaking waiving his right,whether direct or indirect, to seek or pursue anyremedy or any claim in relation to the tax arrearwhich may otherwise be available to him underany law for the time being in force, in equity,under statute or under any agreement enteredinto by India with any country or territoryoutside India whether for protection ofinvestment or otherwise and the undertakingshall be made in such form and manner as maybe prescribed. (6) The declaration under sub-section (1) shallbe presumed never to have been made if,& (a) any material particular furnished in thedeclaration is found to be false at any stage;(b) the declarant violates any of the conditionsreferred to in this Act; (c) the declarant acts in any manner which isnot in accordance with the undertaking givenby him under sub-section (5), and in such cases, all the proceedings andclaims which were withdrawn under section 4and all the consequences under the Income-taxAct against the declarant shall be deemed tohave been revived. (7) No appellate forum or arbitrator, conciliatoror mediator shall proceed to decide any issue relating to the tax arrear mentioned in thedeclaration in respect of which an order hasbeen made under sub-section (1) of section 5by the designated authority or the payment ofsum determined under that section. 5. Time and manner of payment.-(1) Thedesignated authority shall, within a period offifteen days from the date of receipt of thedeclaration, by order, determine the amountpayable by the declarant in accordance with theprovisions of this Act and grant a certificate tothe declarant containing particulars of the taxarrear and the amount payable after suchdetermination, in such form as may beprescribed. (7) No appellate forum or arbitrator, conciliatoror mediator shall proceed to decide any issue relating to the tax arrear mentioned in thedeclaration in respect of which an order hasbeen made under sub-section (1) of section 5by the designated authority or the payment ofsum determined under that section. 5. Time and manner of payment.-(1) Thedesignated authority shall, within a period offifteen days from the date of receipt of thedeclaration, by order, determine the amountpayable by the declarant in accordance with theprovisions of this Act and grant a certificate tothe declarant containing particulars of the taxarrear and the amount payable after suchdetermination, in such form as may beprescribed. (2) The declarant shall pay the amountdetermined under sub-section (1) within fifteendays of the date of receipt of the certificate andintimate the details of such payment to thedesignated authority in the prescribed form andthereupon the designated authority shall passan order stating that the declarant has paid theamount. (3) Every order passed under sub-section (1),determining the amount payable under this Act,shall be conclusive as to the matters statedtherein and no matter covered by such ordershall be reopened in any other proceedingunder the Income-tax Act or under any otherlaw for the time being in force or under anyagreement, whether for protection ofinvestment or otherwise, entered into by Indiawith any other country or territory outsideIndia. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it ishereby clarified that making a declarationunder this Act shall not amount to concedingthe tax position and it shall not be lawful forthe income-tax authority or the declarant beinga party in appeal or writ petition or specialleave petition to contend that the declarant orthe income-tax authority, as the case may be,has acquiesced in the decision on the disputedissue by settling the dispute. 6. Immunity from initiation of proceedingsin respect of offence and imposition ofpenalty in certain cases.- Subject to theprovisions of section 5, the designatedauthority shall not institute any proceeding inrespect of an offence; or impose or levy anypenalty; or charge any interest under theIncome-tax Act in respect of tax arrear.” 22. While going through Section 154 of the Act of 1961,when clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 154 was beingdiscussed, this Court called upon the learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Department to take a plea as to how on the face ofthe provision of Section 154(1)(a), the Assessing Officer couldhave initiated a proceeding in the name of rectification of an errorwhich would have an ultimate effect of reopening an order passedby the designated authority under the Act of 2020. 23.Learned Senior Standing Counsel for theDepartment has agreed at the Bar that from a reading of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 154, at least this much is clear thatthe Assessing Officer cannot amend any order passed by thedesignated authority under Section 5 of the Act of 2020 but at thesame time, learned Senior Standing Counsel in her endeavour tosupport the impugned orders submits that by virtue of the circularwhich contains FAQs, the Assessing Officer would be competentto reopen the order passed by the designated authority. 24. We have considered the submissions of learnedSenior Standing Counsel on this point, however, we are afraid thatsuch contention cannot be accepted by this Court. The scope andambit of Section 154 of the Act of 1961 cannot be extended byvirtue of an answer to a FAQ which has been contained in acircular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Theprovisions of the Act of 2020 and that of the Act of 1961 are to beconstrued by this Court keeping in view the legislative intendmentand the scope of the provisions contained therein. 24. We have considered the submissions of learnedSenior Standing Counsel on this point, however, we are afraid thatsuch contention cannot be accepted by this Court. The scope andambit of Section 154 of the Act of 1961 cannot be extended byvirtue of an answer to a FAQ which has been contained in acircular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Theprovisions of the Act of 2020 and that of the Act of 1961 are to beconstrued by this Court keeping in view the legislative intendmentand the scope of the provisions contained therein. 25. We are of the considered opinion that an order ofassessment which was passed as back as on 19.12.2018 could nothave been reopened by the Assessing Officer by registering aproceeding under Section 154 on 22.12.2022, when theDepartment was a party before the designated authority under theAct of 2020 and in its’ presence, the designated authority considered the matter and issued the certificate of closure ofproceeding on 05.11.2021. 26. The scope of Section 154 which talks of rectificationof mistake is limited to amend any order passed by the AssessingOfficer under the provisions of the Act of 1961 but in no way inthe garb of exercise of its power under clause (a) of sub-section (1)of Section 154 of the Act of 1961, it may be extended to sit overthe order passed and the declaration issued by the designatedauthority under Section 5 of the Act of 2020. 27. We find from the judgment of the Hon’ble DivisionBench of the Delhi High Court that in the said case when thedesignated authority himself wanted to reopen the proceeding byissuing a fresh Form No.-3 dated 29.01.2021, the same was setaside by the Hon’ble High Court. If the same designated authoritycould not have reopened its own order, it cannot be allowed to beargued by any stretch of imagination that the Assessing Officerwould be competent to unsettle the order of a designated authority.At the same time, he cannot render the order of the designatedauthority redundant in the eye of law by passing an order underSection 154(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 in the garb of amending theorder of the Assessing Officer. 28. We are of the considered opinion that in this case theRevisional Authority has also failed to consider the aforesaidaspect of the matter and has simply endorsed the order of theAssessing Officer. 29. In result, the impugned orders as contained inAnnexures ‘P-3’ and ‘P-3/1’ respectively are hereby set aside. Thepetitioner would be entitled for the refund which shall be madeavailable to him within four weeks from today with statutoryinterest. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lekhi/- AFR/NAFRAFRCAV DATEUploading Date08.07.2025Transmission Date