Allowed¶13

Gail (India) Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 – Rectification

Delhi HC4 May 2026W.P.(C)/1903/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 154 Income Tax Act 1961; rectification order; without jurisdiction; Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act 2020; Section 5(2) certificate; Section 5(3) final and conclusive; audit objection; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax; Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax; Satish Kumar Dhingra [2024] 467 ITR 574 (Del); GAIL (India) Limited; Delhi High Court writ petition allowed; order quashed and set aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by respondent no.1 quashed and set aside; petition disposed of alongwith pending applications. ¶13

Gail (India) Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by respondent no.1 quashed and set aside; petition disposed of alongwith pending applications.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the rectification order dated 05.01.2026 passed by respondent no.1 under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, purporting to rectify the Principal Commissioner's order under the Act of 2020, is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. +2 more

¶2

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 05.01.2026 is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2020 and is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside; the Court takes a view similar to that in Satish Kumar Dhingra.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no.1 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) sought to rectify an order which had been passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

¶10

Key takeaways

The scheme of the Act of 2020 does not confer any power of rectification, even on the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.ratio¶11
Under Section 5(3) of the Act of 2020, the amount determined and the order passed under the Scheme are final and conclusive.ratio¶11
Provisions of the Act of 1961 have not been made applicable by the Act of 2020.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 — Rectification — Writ petition by GAIL (India) Limited allowed; rectification order dated 05.01.2026 passed by respondent no.1 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, purporting to rectify the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's order dated 01.11.2021 issued under Section 5(2) of the Act of 2020, quashed and set aside — Held: the scheme of the Act of 2020 does not confer any power of rectification even on the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax; Section 5(3) of the Act of 2020 renders the amount determined and order passed under the Scheme final and conclusive; provisions of the Act of 1961 have not been made applicable by the Act of 2020 — Court takes a view similar to Satish Kumar Dhingra v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2024] 467 ITR 574 (Del).

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1903/2026, CM APPL. 9234/2026 & CM APPL. 9235/2026

¶4

GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Samarth Choudhary, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr.Shivendra Singh & Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

¶9

O R D E R % 04.05.2026

¶10

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by respondent no.1 under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) .

¶11

Mr. Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the impugned order passed in exercise of the purported powers of rectification given under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal on various counts.

¶12

He submitted that what has been rectified by the Assessing Officer vide impugned order dated 05.01.2026 is, the order dated 01.11.2021 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as per Section 5(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 13:00:18

¶15

Act of 2020’) .

¶16

He submitted that the order which has been passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, if at all could be rectified, could be rectified by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax himself and not by the respondent no.1.

¶17

He further submitted that the invocation of provision under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 is per se misconceived inasmuch as the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax on 01.11.2021 was passed under the Act of 2020, which does not make Section 154 of the Act of 1961 applicable.

¶18

In support of the aforesaid, he relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Satish Kumar Dhingra v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2024] 467 ITR 574 (Del) .

¶19

Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel, on the other hand submitted that the impugned rectification order was necessitated, as the Assessing Officer came to receive an audit objection indicating therein that the amount to be paid under the scheme was wrongly calculated by the respondent at the time of issuance of certificate under the Act of 2020.

¶20

He further submitted that the judgment of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar Dhingra (supra) is distinguishable from the present case on facts.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶22

A simple look at the order dated 05.01.2026 shows that the respondent no.1 has sought to rectify an order which was passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

¶23

We further observe that the scheme of the Act of 2020 does not give

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 13:00:18

¶26

any power of rectification even to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The provision contained under Section 5(3) of the Act of 2020 clearly provides that the amount determined and order passed under the Scheme shall be final and conclusive. Provisions of the Act of 1961 have not been made applicable by the Act of 2020.

¶27

The order impugned dated 05.01.2026 is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2020 and is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. Similar is the view taken by this Court rendered in the case of Satish Kumar Dhingra ( supra ).

¶28

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 05.01.2026 passed by respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J.

MAY 4, 2026/ nk

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 13:00:18

Gail (India) Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gail (India) Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar & Ors. Vs Border Security Force & Anr.

Rajnish Kumar Ex Constable Gd Vs Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Deepak Kumar & Ors. Vs Border Security Force & Anr.

Dr. N.Emayavaramban Vs UOI & Ors.

Devanshu Mishra Vs University of Delhi through Its Vice-Chancellor & Ors.

Jasminder Singh Sikka and Anr. Vs Director of Education and Anr.

Shri Ram Nayan Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Uthamaraja M Vs Union of India

Karan Vir Singh Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 28(1), Delhi & Anr.

M/S Labo Tek through Its Partner Shri Gurpreet Singh Bakshi Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Swikriti Travels Vs M/S Mini Pocket Opc Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Rural Electrification Corp Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 Vs Kross Diamonds Pvt. Ltd.

Cadence Design Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi 1 & Ors.