V/S.income Tax Officer Ward22(1)(1), Mumbai And Ors v. N. R. Borkar, Jj

Digitallysigned byPURTIPURTIPRASADPRASADPARABPARABDate:2022.03.2515:33:32+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 623 OF 2021 Aftab Ahmed Khan V/s.Income Tax Officer Ward22(1)(1), Mumbai and Ors. ….Petitioner …Respondents ---- Mr. Sameer Dalal for Petitioner.Mr. Sham V. Walve for Respondents-Revenue. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & N. R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 22[nd] MARCH, 2022 P.C. : 1.Petitioner has filed the present petition before this Hon’bleCourt aggrieved by the action of Respondent No. 2 in rejecting theApplication filed in Form No. 1 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act,2020 (the DTVSV Act) for settlement of his tax dispute pending for A.Y.2005-06. The Application of petitioner was rejected for the reason that onthe Permanent Account Number (‘PAN’) BDYPK 4162 P(‘New PAN’)therewas no tax demand pending. 2.Petitioner had applied for a New PAN in the year 2008 and wasallotted the same by the Revenue Authorities. However, due to sheerinadvertence on the part of petitioner and Revenue Authorities the appealalong with the tax demand therein was not migrated to the new PAN due towhich no demand was depicted under the new PAN. Further, the old PAN was also not deactivated thus due to this inadvertent technical errorpetitioner’s application under the DTVSV Act was rejected. The tax demandfor the A.Y. 2005-06 is still showing as outstanding till today againstpetitioner though in the old PAN which is now deactivated. 3.Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the Income Tax Departmentvide its notice dated 4[th] March, 2020 has pointed current demand pendingagainst the assessee in the same new PAN: of Rs. 12,00,380/-for A.Y. 2005-06. The said communication further afforded opportunity topetitioner for availment of DTVSV Scheme. Therefore, petitioner rightlyfiled its application/declaration under the said PAN: . 4.The rejection order merely on technical ground that there is noappeal nor any tax demand in the new Permanent Account Number beingBDYPK 4162 P would cause grave prejudice to petitioner as on one handpetitioner is barred from participating in the scheme and end the litigationand on the other hand the Revenue proposes to recover the same taxdemand. 5.The objective of the DTVSV Act is to provide for resolution ofdisputed tax and for matters connected there with or incidental thereto.Here petitioner – assessee wants to put an end or wants closure to all thedisputes between him and the tax authorities. 6.Thus, in peculiar circumstances of petitioner’s case RespondentNo.2 be directed to allow petitioner to participate in the DTVSV scheme andsettle his outstanding tax dispute for the A.Y. 2005-06 as per law. 7. 7.Since the rejection of petitioner's declaration under the DTVSVAct was only for reasons as stated above, accordingly, the impugned orderdated 29[th] December 2020 passed by Respondent No.2 is set aside andRespondent No.2 is directed to issue Form No.3 determining disputedamount of tax payable by petitioner in accordance with the Section 3 of theDTVSV Act read with Rule 4 of the DTVSV Rules, within a period of fourweeks. Thereafter, petitioner would pay the amount so determined inForm No. 3 within a period of one week from the issue of Form No. 3 andfurther upload the Form No.4 within one week thereafter. The tax amountpayable by petitioner would not include any further levies as prescribedunder the DTVSV Act, if the same is paid within the time limit as prescribedabove and the same would be deemed to have been paid within the timeallowed under section 3 (a) of the DTVSV Act. 8. Petition disposed with no order as to costs in the above terms. (N. R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)