Shri Dilip Sisodia vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1

PDF · subscribers
WP/19366/2023HC Madhya Pradesh12 August 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA3 pages
For Petitioner: Ashish GoyalFor Respondent: Veena Mandlik
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Indore. The Court relied on the Apex Court's directions concerning the extension of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic, which were also considered in the cited Writ Petition No.19747 of 2022. The Court noted that the period for depositing the settled amount under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, extended up to 31.10.2021, which fell within the period affected by the pandemic. Consequently, the petitioner was held entitled to condonation of delay. The Court directed that the amount be deposited within four weeks from the date of the order. The operative part of the judgment in the cited case, which allowed condonation of delay for filing forms and ITR, was reproduced and applied.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Dilip Sisodia, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.03.2023 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Indore. This order declared the petitioner's declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, null and void due to the non-deposition of the settled amount. The petitioner cited two reasons for non-deposition: the freezing of his bank account by the police following an FIR, and the period of deposition falling within the COVID-19 pandemic phases. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court decision in Writ Petition No.19747 of 2022 (St. Tomas Education and Welfare Society Indore V/s Revenue Department and others), decided on 07.07.2025, which dealt with a similar issue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to condonation of delay in depositing the amount settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, given the circumstances of his bank account being frozen and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the deposition period. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the non-deposition was due to his bank account being frozen by the police after an FIR and the deposition period coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic phases. He relied on the High Court's decision in Writ Petition No.19747 of 2022, which granted condonation of delay due to the Apex Court's directions regarding limitation periods during the pandemic. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 139(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI ON THE 12th OF AUGUST, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 19366 of 2023 SHRI DILIP SISODIA Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Ashish Goyal - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harsh Parashar alongwith Ms. Yashika Bondwal - Advocate the respondents. ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Indore, whereby the declaration under "Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020" has been declared null and void due to non-deposition of the amount settled under the scheme. 02. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner tried to explain the reason of non-deposition i.e. firstly, freezing of the account by the police after registration of the FIR and secondly, the period is falling under the Phase - 1 & 2 of Covid-19. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in Writ Petition No.19747 of 2022 (St. 1 WP-19366-2023 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21643 Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 12-08-2025 17:44:40 Signature Not Verified

Tomas Education and Welfare Society Indore V/s Revenue Department and others) decided on 07.07.2025. 03. Admittedly, in the present case, the order under the "Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020" was passed on 15.01.2021. The petitioner was required to deposit the said amount on or before 31.03.2021 and thereafter extended upto 31.10.2021 which is admittedly falling during the second phase of Covid-19. We have already considered the effect of Covid-19 in the Writ Petition No.19747 of 2022 (supra). The operative paragraph Nos.8 & 9 are reproduced below: "8. Admittedly in the present case the due date for filing the income tax return was on 15.2.2021 under Section 139(4) but the same was filed on 9.3.2021. In the month of March, 2020 the Apex Court took suo motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigant in filing petition, suit, application, appeal and other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law or under any special law; both Central or State due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. First time on 23.3.2020 the Apex Court directed for extension of period of limitation in all the proceedings with effect from 15.3.2020. The limitation was relaxed for the period between 15.3.2020 to 14.3.2021. Thereafter the second stage of Covid-19 started and application was moved for restoration of the order dated 23.3.2020 and all proceedings were suspended till 2.10.2021. Thereafter new variant of Covid-19 was spread across the country and again the protection from expiry of limitation was granted and it was extended up to 28.2.2022. Finally vide order dated 10.1.2022 the Apex Court has concluded that where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have limitation period of 90 days from 1.3.2022. Para 5(III) of the order dated 10.1.2022 is reproduced below:-

"5.(III). In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply." 2 WP-19366-2023 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21643 Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 12-08-2025 17:44:40 Signature Not Verified

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

9.

Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid order of the Apex Court that benefit of limitation was granted to all persons irrespective of their case/proceedings before any of the authority. Admittedly the limitation of filing Form-10 & Form-10B expired during 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for condonation of delay. Hence, the impugned order dated 22.7.2022 is quashed. The application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act for condonation of delay in filing Form 10, Form 10-B & ITR is hereby allowed." (Emphasis supplied) 04. In view of the above, the application dated 30.11.2022 is allowed and the amount be deposited within a period of 4 weeks from today. 05. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Divyansh

3 WP-19366-2023 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21643 Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 12-08-2025 17:44:40 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →