JAYANT EXTRACTION INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2620/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 October 2026AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the first ground concerning the refund of Rs. 4,23,469/-. The Tribunal noted that the assessee itself computed the total tax payable under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme at Rs. 14,61,647/-, and after adjusting prepaid taxes, computed the tax payable at Rs. 10,58,110/-. This amount was paid by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the TDS amount of Rs. 4,03,537/- (note: judgment mentions Rs. 4,26,469/- in para 2 and Rs. 4,03,537/- in para 8, the latter being the figure used in the calculation) was never mentioned in the declaration or thereafter until after the dispute was settled. As there was no order by a departmental authority crystallizing this refund claim, the departmental authorities were justified in rejecting it. Regarding the second ground for a refund of Rs. 5,56,403/-, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to factually verify the assessee's claim. If any amount was recovered by the assessee post-settlement exceeding the amount payable/paid under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the same was to be refunded to the assessee. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jayant Extraction Industries Private Limited (formerly Focus Comtrade Pvt. Ltd.), filed an appeal against an order dated 12.01.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal concerned two grounds: a refund of excess tax paid amounting to Rs. 4,23,469/- and another refund claim of Rs. 5,56,403/-. The initial assessment was completed under Section 143 r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, creating a demand of Rs. 19,35,410/-. During the pendency of the appeal before the first appellate authority, the assessee opted for the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2020, making a declaration on 23.02.2021. The competent authority issued Form No. 5 on 25.03.2022, approving the final settlement. Subsequently, the assessee sought rectification under Section 154 for TDS not considered in the Vivad-se-Vishwas computation, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to a refund of Rs. 4,23,469/- on account of TDS not considered while computing tax liability under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2020, despite the final settlement order (Form No. 5) being issued? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 154 and the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2020). - Assessee's contention: The TDS amount was not considered, leading to an excess payment, and a refund is due. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to a refund of Rs. 5,56,403/-, which was allegedly adjusted by the department against other assessment years despite the settlement of the dispute in the current assessment year? - Assessee's contention: The department failed to update the demand position in the ITBA portal after the settlement, and refunds relating to other assessment years were adjusted against the demand in the current year. - Revenue's contention: The correctness of the assessee's claim can be verified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143,Section 263,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Respondent: Ms. Meenu Ola Sr. DR

आदेश / ORDER

PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT:

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 12.01.2026 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

In ground no. 1, the assessee has raised the issue of refund of excess tax paid amounting to Rs.4,23,469/-.

3.

Briefly the facts relating to this issue are the assesse, earlier known as Focus

Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. is a resident corporate entity. Pursuant to an order passed u/s. 263 of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short), the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short)

completed assessment u/s. 143 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, determining the total income at

Rs.47,30,250/-, resulting in creation of demand of Rs.19,35,410/-.

4.

Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before

learned first appellate authority.

5.

However, during the pendency of the appeal before learned first appellate

authority, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT for short) introduced Direct Tax

Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2020. In order to settle the dispute arising in the appeal, the

assessee made a declaration in Form Nos.1 and 2 on 23.02.2021 before the competent

authority. Accepting the declaration of the assessee, the competent authority issued Form

No. 3, directing the assessee to pay the taxes computed towards settlement of dispute.

Upon payment of taxes by the assesse within the stipulated time frame, the component

authority issued Form No. 5 on 25.03.2022 approving final settlement of the dispute.

After issuance of Form No. 5, the assessee filed an application u/s. 154 of the Act before

the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, seeking rectification on the ground that TDS

amounting to Rs.4,26,469/- was not considered while computing the tax liability under

the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Thus, he claimed refund of the said amount. While

disposing of the rectification application, the A.O. in order dated 31.03.2025 declined to

entertain assessee’s claim on the ground that Form No. 5 having been issued by Pr. CIT,

any variation in the tax computed/determined therein towards final settlement of the dispute would amount to rectifying the order of a superior authority by the subordinate

authority.

6.

Against the order so passed, u/s.154 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal.

7.

However, learned first appellate authority agreed with the decision of the AO.

8.

We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record.

Undisputedly, pending disposal of the appeal before learned first appellate authority, the

assesse, taking advantage of the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2020, furnished a declaration

in Form Nos. 1 & 2 on 23.02.2021. A perusal of the said forms placed in the paper book

clearly demonstrates that the assessee itself has computed the total tax payable under the

Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme at Rs.14,61,647/-, and after adjusting the prepaid taxes of

Rs.4,03,537/-, has computed the tax payable at Rs.10,58,110/-. After considering the

declaration in Form Nos. 1 & 2, the competent authority, i.e., PCIT, issued Form No. 3

and directed the assessee to pay the tax computed at Rs.10,58,110/-on or before

31.03.2021. In compliance, the assessee paid the tax amount of Rs.10,58,110/-on

15.03.2021. Thus, upon payment of tax computed by the assessee itself, the competent

authority accepted the declaration and issued Form No. 5 towards final settlement of the

dispute. Thus, as could be seen from the aforesaid facts, neither in the declaration in Form

Nos. 1 & 2, nor even thereafter, the assessee had ever even whispered about the TDS

amount of Rs.4,03,537/-. Only after the dispute was settled under the Vivad-se-Vishwas

Scheme, 2020, the assessee has raised the claim before the Jurisdictional Assessing

Officer. Even, there is no factual clarity whether assessee’s claim of excess payment

arising out of TDS of Rs.4,03,537/- has ever been accepted by the department, either in the assessment or in any other proceeding. Thus, in absence of any order by the

departmental authority, it cannot be said that the refund of Rs.4,03,537/- claimed by the

assessee has crystallized. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the departmental

authorities are justified in rejecting assessee’s claim. This ground is dismissed.

9.

In ground no. 2, the assessee has claimed refund of Rs.5,56,403/-.

10.

We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. It is the contention

of the assessee before us that even after settlement of dispute upon payment of tax by the

assessee, the department has adjusted refund amounting to Rs.5,56,403/- relating to other

assessment years against the payment raised by the A.O. in the current assessment year.

11.

Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that despite settlement of

dispute, the departmental authority failed to update the demand position in the ITBA

portal, which continued to reflect the demand raised by the A.O. without updating the

demand position after settlement of the dispute.

12.

Ld. DR submitted, the correctness of assessee’s claim can be verified.

13.

Having considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on

record. We direct the A.O. to factually verify assessee’s claim and, in case of any amount

having been recovered by the assesse post settlement of dispute against the Direct Tax

Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2020, exceeding the amount payable/paid by the assessee as

directed in Form No. 3, the same has to be refunded to the assessee. Hence, this ground

is allowed for statistical purpose.

14.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

MAKARAND V MAHADEOKAR SAKTIJIT DEY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Mumbai Dated: 14.10.2026 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy to: JAYANT EXTRACTION INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, 405 DALAMAL HOUSE, 4TH FLOOR, ,J. 1 BALAJI ROAD NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, MAHARASHTRA DCIT, CIRCLE 3(2)(1), DCIT, CIRCLE 3(2)(1), AAYAKAR 2 BHAVAN, MAHARSHI KARVE RD, MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →