Dismissed¶¶84

M/S Power Point v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2026WA/516/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Direct Tax Vivad Se Vivad/Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 eligibility; specified date 22.07.2024 as cut-off date; CBDT removal of difficulties order dated 20.01.2025 (S.O. 348(E)); section 98 Finance (No.2) Act 2024; Section 254(2) Miscellaneous Application treated as appeal or not; six-month limitation and condonation of delay; Section 260A appeal 120-day limitation expired before specified date; ITAT order dated 14.11.2023; CIT(A) order 31.07.2023; scrutiny assessment 20.09.2021 AY 2019-20 electric contract works partnership firm; writ appeal under Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act dismissed; Karnataka HC Bengaluru DB 05.03.2026; NC: 2026:KHC:13955-DB.

What did the court decide?

The specified date under the 2024 Scheme is 22.07.2024, which the Court construes as the cut-off date for deciding eligibility. ¶7

M/S Power Point Vs the Union of India — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶84

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-assessee is eligible to file an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, having regard to the specified (cut-off) date of 22.07.2024. +1 more

¶3.3

Court's answer

The specified date under the 2024 Scheme is 22.07.2024, which the Court construes as the cut-off date for deciding eligibility.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Under the Board's removal-of-difficulties order dated 20.01.2025 (issued under sub-section (1) of section 98 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024), a person whose order was passed on or before 22.07.2024 with appeal-time available gains eligibility only if the appeal is filed within the prescribed/stipulated time without any condonation of delay.

¶7.3

Key takeaways

In the present case no appeal was pending as on the specified date 22.07.2024, the Tribunal having decided the appeal on 14.11.2023.ratio¶7.4
The next permissible appeal lay under Section 260A of the Act with a 120-day limitation; that limitation had expired before the specified date, and no such appeal was filed subsequently.ratio¶7.4
The Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) filed on 02.12.2024 was beyond the prescribed six-month limitation and was admittedly not filed within the stipulated time, having been filed with a prayer for condonation of delay.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (T-IT) under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the order dated 15.12.2025 in W.P. No.2721/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the assessee's challenge to its ineligibility under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (notified 16.08.2024, effective 01.10.2024; specified date/cut-off 22.07.2024). Division Bench (per K.V. Aravind, J., with S.G. Pandit, J.): the assessee's AY 2019-20 scrutiny assessment (20.09.2021) was confirmed by the CIT(A) (31.07.2023); the Tribunal, by order dated 14.11.2023, remitted one issue and dismissed the rest. Under the Board's removal-of-difficulties order dated 20.01.2025 (S.O. 348(E), under section 98 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024), a person whose order predates the specified date with appeal-time available becomes eligible only if the appeal is filed within the stipulated time without condonation of delay. Here, no appeal was pending on 22.07.2024; the 120-day limitation for a Section 260A appeal had expired before that date and no such appeal was filed; and the Section 254(2) Miscellaneous Application filed on 02.12.2024 exceeded the six-month limitation and sought condonation - even if construed as an appeal, it did not confer eligibility. Holding the Single Judge right and finding no error or infirmity, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal as devoid of merit.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13955-DB WA No. 516 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

WRIT APPEAL No. 516 OF 2026 (T-IT)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

M/S POWER POINT

¶13

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED

¶14

UNDER PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932,

¶15

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.5, CURLY STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU 560 025,

¶16

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR. MOHAMMED YOUSUFF, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶18

(BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE)

¶19

…APPELLANT

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, (INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT), ROOM No.46, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, DELHI-110001.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:13955-DB WA No. 516 of 2026

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.

¶26

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(SRI Y. V. RAVIRAJ, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL)

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 15/12/2025 PASSED IN WP No.2721/2025 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶30

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

¶34

Heard Smt. Jinita Chatterjee, learned counsel for the

¶35

appellant and Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned Senior Standing Counsel, who accepts notice for the respondents.

¶36

The petitioner in W.P. No.2721/2025 has preferred this

¶37

appeal impugning the order dated 15.12.2025.

¶38

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13955-DB WA No. 516 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The facts, in brief, are that the appellant, who is engaged in the business of electric contract works, filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2019–20, which resulted in a scrutiny assessment order dated 20.09.2021. The assessee carried the said order in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, ‘CIT(A)’]. The CIT(A), by order dated 31.07.2023, sustained the additions.

¶41

3.1 The assessee thereafter preferred an appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short, ‘Tribunal’], wherein the Tribunal remitted one issue to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment, whereas the appeal on the other issues came to be dismissed by order dated 14.11.2023. The assessee also preferred Misc. Application No.62/Bang/2024.

¶42

3.3 After the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal and before the Miscellaneous Application was field before the Tribunal, the CBDT introduced “The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024” [for short, ‘2024 Scheme’] vide Finance Act No.2 of 2024. The dispute concerns the eligibility of the assessee to file an application under the said Scheme. The application filed by the appellant–assessee was held to be not

¶43

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13955-DB WA No. 516 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

eligible. The said decision was the subject matter of the writ petition giving rise to the impugned order. The learned Single Judge refused to entertain the writ petition, holding that the assessee is not eligible.

¶46

Smt. Jinita Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the 2024 Scheme was notified on 16.08.2024 and came into effect from 01.10.2024. It is submitted that the specified date was 22.07.2024, which is the cut-off date for deciding the eligibility of the application. It is further submitted that though no appeal was pending on the specified date, a miscellaneous petition was filed subsequently, and the same constitutes eligibility in view of the order issued by the CBDT for removal of difficulties under the Scheme. It is submitted that, as per the said order, even an application filed with delay would be eligible under the Scheme.

¶47

Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is strictly in conformity with the conditions prescribed under the Scheme and that the application filed by the appellant is not eligible.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:13955-DB WA No. 516 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties.

¶52

The 2024 Scheme was notified on 16.08.2024 and came into effect from 01.10.2024. The Scheme provides the eligibility criteria for filing an application and specifies the relevant date. The specified date is 22.07.2024, which can be construed as the cut-off date.

¶53

7.1 To be eligible under Section 89 of the Scheme, an appeal must have been ready for filing or the proceedings referred to therein must have been pending. There may be cases where the appeal was decided before the Scheme or before the cut-off date, and the time limit for filing an appeal was still available so as to extend the benefit of the Scheme. In this context, the order dated 20.01.2025 has been issued by the Board. The same reads as under:

¶54

"S.O. 348(E).—WHEREAS, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 was introduced vide the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 (15 of 2024) and came into force with effect from the 1st day of October, 2024;

¶55

WHEREAS, while implementing the said Scheme difficulties have arisen in situations where,–

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13955-DB WA No. 516 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

(a) an order in case of a person had been passed on or before the specified date i.e. the 22nd day of July, 2024;

¶59

(b) the time for filing an appeal in respect of such order was available as on the said date;

¶60

(c) appeal in respect of such order was filed after the said date within the stipulated time as applicable for filing of such appeal; and

¶61

(d) aforesaid appeal is filed without any application for condonation of delay;

¶62

WHEREAS, section 98 of the said Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 provides that if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Scheme, the Central Government may, by Order, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Scheme, remove the difficulty;

¶63

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 98 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, the Central Government hereby makes the following Order to remove the difficulty, namely:-

¶64

(i) in the case of such a person, aforesaid appeal shall be considered as pending as on the 22nd day of July, 2024 for the purposes of the said Scheme;

¶65

(ii) such a person shall be considered as an appellant for the purposes of the said Scheme;

¶66

(iii) in such a case, disputed tax shall be calculated on the basis of such appeal; and

¶67

(iv) the provisions of the said Scheme and the rules framed there under shall apply accordingly in such a case.

¶68

7.2 As per the said order, the order should have been passed before 22.07.2024 and the time limit for filing an appeal

¶69

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13955-DB WA No. 516 of 2026

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

against such order should be available as on 22.07.2024. The appeal filed after 22.07.2024 should be within the stipulated time applicable for filing such appeal, and such appeal should have been filed without any application for condonation of delay.

¶72

7.3 On a reading of the above contemplated situations, it emerges that even if an order is passed before 22.07.2024 and the time limit for filing an appeal is available, and if such appeal is filed within the prescribed time without any delay, the appeal, on being so filed, would be eligible under the Scheme.

¶73

7.4 In the present case, no appeal was pending as on 22.07.2024. The Tribunal had decided the appeal on 14.11.2023. The next appeal permissible under the scheme of the Act is under Section 260A of the Act before this Court, with a limitation period of 120 days. The limitation for filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Act had expired before the specified date. It is also not the case that such an appeal was filed subsequently.

¶74

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13955-DB WA No. 516 of 2026

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

7.5 However, the assessee preferred a Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Act on 02.12.2024. Whether an application filed under Section 254(2) for rectification of mistake constitutes an appeal under the Scheme

¶77

is one of the issues. Be that as it may, such application was filed on 02.12.2024, whereas the prescribed limitation is six months. Undoubtedly, the application was not filed within the stipulated time and was not filed without seeking condonation of delay.

¶78

7.6 Therefore, the application filed under Section 254(2) on 02.12.2024, even if construed as an appeal, not having been filed within the stipulated time, cannot qualify the assessee for filing an application under the 2024 Scheme.

¶79

The learned Single Judge, upon considering the above aspects, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We find no justification or demonstrable grounds to entertain this appeal. The appellant has not pointed out any error or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶80

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:13955-DB WA No. 516 of 2026

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83