Allowed

Amina Khatoon v. The Union of India And 3 Others

Telangana HC22 Jun 2023WP/42835/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed the writ petition, holding that the rejection of the petitioner's declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 was invalid due to lack of notice and hearing, violating natural justice, while also confirming eligibility via condoned appeal.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order of 20.04.2021 rejecting the petitioners declaration; remanded matter to a new designated authority for fresh decision within eight weeks.

Amina Khatoon Vs The Union of India And 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹¹ ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:42835 0F 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vtr.49ilg [hatoon,^{Wife of Sri} .Zutfi .Ravdjee, aged 67 years Resident of 8-2-4941501 , Road No. 7,Banjara Hiils, HyOeiibiO lsOo OS+

¶10

...PET]TIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.

¶13

The Designated Authority under the Direct rax, Vivad se Vishwas Act,2o2o, o/o.The Principar chief commissioner of tn"o.he iii, ii ro*"ii, nvioioiir.

¶14

3 The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-6, lT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The Assistant Commissioner oJ lncome Tax, Circle 14 (.1 ) Room No 635, 6th Floor, C Block lT Towers, AC Guards UyOeraOiA SOOOb+

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Articre 226 ot rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the-0. circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High'c;rt ,ry pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, prefJrabty a writ lri tne nature of Mandamus decraring the impugned proceedings (marked ". nnn.rrr"-r !:ryjl!)^{of the 2ndresponderrtherein rejecting tne p-etiiioner'.} "ppri""'ti* ot. 0310312021 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2o2o m bLing iil"grr, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the constitution of lndia ano atsl be'ing contrary to the provisions of the said Act and clarifications issued oy tre Csbr g1d the order passed by the Honourabre rncome Tax Appeflate Tribunar, Hvderabad Bench-A dated 231o3t202't in lrA No. 131lHydl2bb.l ana as being against the order of this Honourable court in w.p. No. 2g250 ot 2021 dated 0610112022 and consequenfly set aside the same and direct the 2nd i".ponJ"nt to process the petitioners application dt. o3lo3l2o21 under Direct rax Vivad se Vishwas Act,2o2o and issue Form lll under the said Act to enable the petitioner to settle the dispute

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent relecting the petitioners application dl 0310312021 under the Direct tax Vivad se Vishwas AcI, 2O2O pending disposal of the above Writ Petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENUGOPAL SR. COUNSEL

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GA,DI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR

¶24

GENERAL OF INDIA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,3&4: SRI J.V.PRASAD SC FOR^INCOME

¶26

TAX DEPT

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

HON'BLE THB CHIEF JIJSl'ICE UJJAL I]HIJYAN ANI)

¶30

HON'llt.u sRt Jtist'l(-1. N. TtiKAR.AM.trl

¶31

!VRIl' PETI'I'lON No.J2835 of 2022

¶32

ORDER : (Per Hon'ble the Chief ,lustk.e tljjat Bhuyan)

¶33

I Ieard Mr. P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counse I for thc pctitioner; Mr. G.Praveen Kumar. learned Deputy Solicitor Gcncral ol India lor respondent No. l; and lvlr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel fbl Incorne'l'ax Depar-trrent lirr rcspondent Nos.2. 3 and 4.

¶34

Bv way o1- this pctition illcci under Articlc ?26 of thir Constittrtioir ol-lndiai. petitioncl has praycd tbr the fbllo*,ing relicl

¶35

"lt is therctble prayed that this lIon'ble Couft rnay be plcesed to issue any apprtrpriate Writ, Ordcr or direction, prefcrably a writ irr lhe naturc ol- Mandamus declaring the impugncd prc)cccdings (rnarked as Annexure-l herewith) ol- tl'rc lnd respondent herein rejecting the petitioncr's application dt.0,1.03.202 I under the Direct^'fax \iivad se Vishwas Aci.^2020as being illegal, arbitr-ar1,, violatire ol Alticle l4 of^the Constitution of lndia and also being cor-rtlali' to^the proi.,isions ot'thc said Act lnd clarifications issued by the CBD'I'and the order^passccl by the Hon'ble Ittcome

¶36

¶37

H( l li^{\r'R. J} tl. P. \o.I )S^t 5 o/ )0))

¶38

Tax Appetlatc^{fribunal.HyderabadUench-Adated} 23.03.2021 in^{IfANo13 t/l{yd/2021 and as beitrg} against the^{order ol thisLIon'ble Coun in} W I'].No 28250^{o1- 20lldated06'01 2021 and} consequently^{set asidcthe sameand dircct the 2n'i} respondent to^{process tl-re petitioner'sapplication} dt.03.0i.2021^{under DirectTax Vivad se VishwasAct'} 2020 and issue^{Fortr Ilt under the said Act to cnable tl-rc} petitiollcr to^{settlethe dispute and passsuch other ordcr} or ordels as^{this FIon'bleCourtmaydeem1rt and proper} in the circumstances^{of ihe case "}

¶39

Basic grievance^{of the petitioner peflainsto rejectionof her} application^{dated03.03.202I lbr settlementof tax dtres underthe} Direct Tax^{Vivadse Vishrvas Act,2020'The reasonslor rejection}

¶40

(undated) are^as under:

¶41

" Rcason of Rejection

¶42

From Irorm^{No. I and 2 filed by the assesseeon 03-03-} 2021 under^{DTVSVS it is seen that: A) As on'specified} date i.e., 3l-03-2020,^{it is necessary thatan appealeither} should be^{pending or the time limit to file appealas on} 31-0l-2020 has not^{expired. The assessee failed to} fulfill the above conclitions.^{B) Also, it is evident frorn} Form I that the^{assesseefiled the application againsttl.re} disputed interest. Ilowever,^{as all the appellalelorums} ir-, ,tl tne three rortnds of^{proceedings,have t'avouredthe} assessee and at the time of frling^{of applicationunder} DTVSVS, there is no disputed tax^{andthe question of}

¶43

¶44

tt(J&Ntft..l ll'. P. \o.42835 of 2022

¶45

¶46

-'JI

¶47

disputed intcrest does not arisc. C) F urrhe r. in the case of Sri Boddu Ramesh, Arrnor.. undcr similar clrcumstances, against the order. ol tlon'ble Iligh Court of Judicature at Hyder.abad dirccting the Depanment to issue Form No.3, the Depaftmenl his pref-erred an SLp before Hon'ble Supreme Courl rvhich ii pending in view of the above the apptication is hereby r.cjectcd.,,

¶48

Petitioner is an assessee under the Incorne^.fax Act, I 961 (briefly "the Act" hereinafter). For the Assessment year 200g_09, the Assessing Officer i.e. respondent No.4 passcd an Assessrrent Order which was rectified on 05.03.2019 under Scction 154 of the Act. Against the Assessment Order as rectified, pe titioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3. Howevcr, by order dated 10.10.2019, the appeal was partly allowed. Assailing that part of the order of the first appellate authority i.e. respondent No.3, petitioner filed further appeal before the Income 1.ax Appellate Tribunal at Hyderabad on 24.02.2021 which was registered as I.T.A.No.l3llHyd/2020. In the meanwhile, Union of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 providing for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

f..-

-l

H( .t ti^\t.R,.t ll . t'. - o- I )^{li.i 5o} I^{) 0 ) -:}

¶53

Sitrcc thcre^{was dcla'' ()f'(443) dsr'5 iu preierringihc said} irppcal befixc^{the lncome-l'ltx Appellatelribr-rnal'an application} tbr condonation^{of clclal, u as fi led. when the appealalong ivith} thc delay^{conclonatioupetitionu'as taken up by the Income '[-ax} ;\ppellate^{I'ribunal, it rvassubrlitted on behalfof the petitionerthat} peritioncr^{wouldlike to availthe benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad se} Vishwas Act,^{2020. tn thar t'iew of the rnatter' IncomcI'a;<} Appeltate^{Trit''unal by order dated 23 03'2021'condonedthe delay} in frling^{the appcal,whercalier' petitioner rvas grantedliberty ttr} u,ithdraw^{lhe appeal to ar,laii her remedy under the Direct l'ar} Vivad se Vishwas^{ActPetitioner had in the meanrvhile filed} declaration^{utrdet' the said Act on 03 '03 '2021 before respondent} No.2. Hou'ever,^{by order dated 20'04 2021' the declarationwas} rejected

¶54

Aggrieved by^{suchrejcction, petitionerl.rad approached this} Coun earlier^{by filing W P'No 28250 of 2021 ''fhe writ petition} was contcsted by^{the respondentsby hlingcounter affidavit' Stand} taken was that as^{on the spccifreddate i.e. 30.01.2021, no appeal of} the^petitioncr was^{per-rcling before the Income -I'axAppellate}

¶55

¶56

¶57

( .t & .\7 R. ./ ll'. 1,..\ o.,1 ) t -t -i o.f 2(D)

I I i I

),,

Tribunal ('fribunal). T.hough the last date for filing the applicarion was extended to 04.12.2020. it was contended that even as on that date, there was no appeal pending. Therefore, petitioner was nor eligible to make the declaration.

¶62

Petitioner relied upon Circular No.2l/2020 issued b1 the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), more parlicularll,, upon the answer given to question No.59 and also on a coordinate Bench decision of this Court IN Boddu Ramesh v Designa ted Authorityr.

¶63

On behalf of the Revenue, it was contended that against the decision of this Court in Boddu Ramesh (supra), Itcvenue has preferred Special Leave petition to Appeal before the Supreme Court, though no stay was granted therein.

¶64

This Court, vide the judgment and order d,aLed,06.01.2022, extracted the rejection order dated 20.04.2021, which reads as follows:

¶65

"Application in Form I &2filed on 03.03.2021 claiming appeals pending belore the ITAT towards

'^437rrR 32

.-1

1.I(./ .li .<sup>1fl,./ ll'. P. i|o.4lli-t 5 of⁾⁰²⁾

¶71

dispLrt,-:cl intcrest.^{lhe saicl appeals weT} . .l1lcd.^on :+.b:..:O: I^{ag.ainst the order ol the Clll'(A)datcd} 10.10.10 19.^{As r.ro ,rppcal is pending as on specitied date} i.e. 31 03.1020^{arrd alsoas time to flte appealis expired'} the asscssee^{is rrot eli{rible and has to be treated as not a} valici clcclarant ,,.^{p., I)-l\rS Act, 2020 |-urther it is} rloted that^{rvhile thc disputein Form I & 2 is disputed} int,:'rcst.^{rvhcrcas .t:} 1le^{t the grotlnds o{' appeal filcd} U.'fu,,. tn"^{Cl l(r) anci also I'I'A'I (fiteda[ter specitrcd} datc) thc^{dispute is otl lhe quantumof addition.andnot} o, i,r,.,..t^{portion.;\lso, in this case, the gror-rndslaised} bclorc Cll-l iA)^{hai'e becn allorved in favourof assessee} ancl no^{grcuncl arisesfirr appealThis application is an} ott"n.'1.,tio^{misuse Lhe p,ovisions of the VS Act to avoid} pa),r-neut o1'cofirpr-rlsoly^{interest on u'hichno dispute} ir.ir", tn^{vic.'" cf: the above,the applicationfiled under} D IVSV is hcrebY'^{Ril.ll1CTED'"}

¶72

9.l. Atler^{anal,vzirrgthc provisionsof the Direct Tax Vivadse} VishrvasAtr.2020andalsocluestionNo.5gandtheanswergiven

¶73

thetelo as^{conlairred in CBDT CircularNo21 of 2020 dated}

¶74

04.12.2020.^{this Courl hcldas fbllows:}

¶75

"-19. 'l-his Clouft had thus taken the view that when^the lncotre Tax Appellate^{Tribunalhad accepted the} application foi^{condonation of delay and had} coirdoned the delay,^{the effect would be that the} appeal befbre the^{lncome Tax Appetlate. Tribunal} rvould be construed to have^{been filedwithintime} and the lirnitation^{wouldrelate back to the dateby} rvhich tinre the appeal^{against the orderof the flrst} appellate autholiL-v ought^{to have been filed'Once} it is considcred that the appeal^{beforethe Income} -lax Appcllate 'lribunal is deemed to have been

¶76

' ,_. 3r. /

¶77

^t ]

¶78

¶79

HCJ .I ,\ I'R, J ll'. P. t2.42X-1; ,,.1 2112;>

¶80

filed within time, the same would bc constr.ued as having been filed before the sp.cifieJdui" ,.ut i.t in turn would mean that the peiitioner *ouf a nuu" to be construed to be an appellant as cletired in Section 2(l)(a) (i) of the Vivacl Se Vishwas nct.

¶81

I'hough leamed counsel for the Revenuc submits that Special Leave petition t,as b".n p..t."..ea against the said decision of the coordinar! Sench, but he fairly concedes that there i, ". .,ry _a".

¶82

t^1s9far the present case is concerned, petitione.r filed her declaration on 03.03.202i-*[i.n u, belore rhe lasr exrended art" fori,ting O".Lrr,lo, i.e., 31.03.202i But, U.iir." oi.oi:O:t, tf.r" appeal was filed by the petitioner- O"-tU," tfr" Income Tax Appellate Trilunal ." ii.'.il.r02, along with an application f", """a"rri., "r delay. The delay was condoned o, zi.o:fir on which date the appeal was also aior,i "i considering the submission of ,r,. p"iiulr.i ,rru, she would file declaration ,.rd". ii,""Virlo S" Vishwas Act which was not oU:."i"a to'f,u *,"

¶83

On due consideration, we are in agreement with the view taken by the coordinate ei"";j;'i;"aa, Ramesh .(.1 supra) more particularly to those expressed in paragraph Nos.40 and +: ihereoi

¶84

fhat apaft, we find that rejection of the declaration was not preceded by uny nn,i.. or^ hearing. Though such notice ", fr."'.ir*"i.'"* provided under Section 5 of the ViuuJ ."'?iriu, Acr, it is axiomatic that princifle, "f'rlrf

¶85

justice, which is the very essence of faimess, demands rhat before an adverse decision i;-;;k"" affecting the rights and tiabilities "i r, "eg.[""d

''!

I i

E;-_Ji.--

I tcJ <& .\TIt. J ll'.P.\o.428-t5^rrJ2t)2 )

¶92

pcrsr)n. lrc^()ught to^{be pul on noticcand giverian} -l he sarne having not been opponttrrit)^{o1' llcaring.} done rn thc^{presentcase, the impugr-rcd decision} sLLf 1cr-s lionr^{r iolation ol the principlesof natural} .justice^{lrlrich is one more reason why we are} constrainecl to intet'fere^{withthe same.}

¶93

1+ Acculdirglr',^{wc set aside the irnpugnedorder} datcd 10.0:1.1021^{passed by respondentno'2} lc.jectiL.rg the^{declaration/application ofthc} pe1 itionel dated^{03.03.2021 for settlement ol tax} ilucs ,-'r,der the Direct^{Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act,} 2i)20 ancl rcmand^{the mattet'backto the authority} lor- Laking a^{liesh decision in accordance with} larr .

¶94

,1.5 Since rhe^{present designatedauthorityhas already} discloscd his^{mind on the merit of the declaration} ir.r tlrc inrpugned order^{dated 2O-04.2021,we} direct the^{jurisdictional PrincipalChief} C<,rnmissioner of^{IncomeTax to assign another} dcsignatecl authority^{to deal with the declaration} of the petitioner.^{Let a fresh decisionbe takenby} thc neu clesignated^{authorityon the declarationof} the petitionet within^{a period of eight (08)weeks} 1l-onr thc date ol^{receipt of a copy ol tl.ris order."}

¶95

g.2. l'hus. this Cotrrl. agreeing with the earlier decision in Boddu

¶96

Ramesh (supra) and also^{observingthat rejection of the declaration}

¶97

was nol preceded by'any^{noticeor hearing, setaside the orderdated} 20 .O4.2OZ1 ancl^renr anded^{the matter back to the authorityfor} taking a lresh decision. While^{remanding the matter,this Coutt} lufiher observecl that the designated authority^{who had passed the}

¶98

¶99

rt(J& \ t.J lt'. P. .:o.,1) 8.1 5 ol )tD2

I ; \ I \ l ; I

,:.;*7

order dared 20.04.2021, had already discloscd his mind on the merits 01 the declaration and thcrelore directed thc jurisdicfional I'rincipal Chiel Commissioner of Income^'['ax to assign another designated authority to deal with the declaration of the petitioner.

¶105

It was thereafter that the impugned undated order came to be passed which we have already noted above

¶106

I I . Respondents have fi led counler affidavit virlually reiterating the stand hken in the earlier proceedings.

¶107

From the undated reasons for rejection of the declaration of the petitioner as extracted supra, we frnd that the same is almost identical to the reasons dated 20.04.2021 which we have also extracted above and which was set aside.by this court in the earlier round of titigation. The respondents, more particularly respondent No.2, have not considered the declaration of the petitioner as directed by this Court vide the judgment and order dated 06.01 .2022. That apart, mere filing of Special Leave petition ro Appeal before the Supreme Court without any stay can be no ground for rejection of the declaration ofthe petitioner.

¶108

Lr{ ,;

¶109

I^(I Il(.1 &^\lR ll.t'-,'o.4 28-i 5^{trl )tl} ):

¶110

I3. ln thc^{tiictttt'tsl.ittl'.c: :rrrti liLlou'ing [hc 'juclunrent aud order} ol this^{Cor.rrL tlated 0(r.t)1.)r-i.'lpasscd in W P'No'28250 o1'202 I'} wc set asioe^{thc ull.diltc(l ordcr o1' tejection iLtrd direct} respondenr^{N,r.lto talic orr hoirrd the declaration ol the petitronet} ciated 01.0-1.11021^{iincl consider'the same as a validdeclaration} under thc^{Dir.:ctJ.ax .ir,ad sc VishwasAct,,2o20 and tlrerealtertrr} I his shall^{he dorrc ',r itltin :r} do the necdfirl^{itl ac ci't'dilnr:} '-:^{n'lth law}

¶111

period of sir' 'r'ccl<s^{llltlt'rccirLi'} "rt-reccipt^{of a copl' of ihis orCr:r}

¶112

Writ^{pctition is accorclingll'allorved' No costs'}

¶113

Perrilinr:.^{tl'tiscellaneottsappllcations' ifany' shall slatt)'}

¶114

crosed

¶115

ot''tiRi{*E=nTJHtH //rRuE CoPY// .e!ffin,^oFFICER

¶116

iJlil**'o""0'o

¶117

"'l$:;.ffi $,iu'.jtfi^{##ff Hi"{frHr"Er;f}

¶118

Fvi'ei'uao ' -flncome Tax^{(Appeals)-6'lr Towers' AC Guards'}

¶119

1. The Commissioner^ot Hvderabad'

¶120

;**E#'tr=l+,tunt,tl'*$tr'frfl - ttlotn ioPuclioPucl =t,jlTffi 'I':'. 7. One CC to SRI One CC to SRI CC to SRI to SRI SRI J V'PRASAD SC V'PRASAD SC SC^{FOR INCOME INCOMETAX DEPT IOPUCIIOPUCI}

¶121