HIGH PROFILE SOFTECH PVT LTD vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court held that once Form No. 2 was issued to the petitioner under the VSV Scheme, and the fact was brought to the notice of the appellate authority (CIT(A)/NFAC), the authority ought to have stayed its hands. The Court found that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have disposed of the appeal as withdrawn once Form No. 4 was issued, rather than deciding the appeal and remanding it. The Court noted that while the CIT(A)/NFAC's order might not be technically illegal as it preceded Form No. 4, it was contrary to the mandate of the VSV Scheme. The approach of the CIT(A)/NFAC and the Tribunal resulted in multiplicity of litigation. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 07.03.2025 and the Tribunal dated 29.09.2025 and 08.05.2026 were quashed and set aside. It was held that the certificate/Form No. 4 dated 14.05.2025 shall remain conclusive. The writ petition was allowed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, High Profile Softech Pvt Ltd, for Assessment Year 2018-19, had its assessment order dated 24.03.2023. An appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, paid the determined amount, and received Form No. 2 on 16.01.2025 and Form No. 4 on 14.05.2025. Despite informing the CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was not disposed of as per the scheme. Instead, the CIT(A)/NFAC remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The petitioner's subsequent appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was dismissed as withdrawn. A miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. The petitioner contended that these actions revived concluded assessment proceedings despite finality under the VSV Scheme.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer instead of disposing of the appeal in terms of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, after the petitioner had opted for the scheme and received Form No. 2 and Form No. 4? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as withdrawn, despite the settlement under the VSV Scheme? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was erroneous as it failed to defer the hearing and dispose of the appeal as per the VSV Scheme provisions, despite being notified. The petitioner further contended that the Tribunal's dismissal of its appeal as withdrawn was surprising and incorrect, as the entire demand stood modified/satisfied under the VSV Scheme. The petitioner argued that the actions of the CIT(A)/NFAC and the Tribunal revived concluded assessment proceedings, which had attained finality due to the VSV Scheme settlement. The petitioner relied on the spirit of the VSV Scheme. Revenue's Contentions: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department had no valid argument to support the approach of the CIT(A)/NFAC and the Tribunal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, & ANR.
%
2026
Ms. Rano Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, informs the Court that for the Assessment Year 2018-19, the petitioner’s assessment order was made on 24.03.2023, whereagainst an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘NFAC’).
During the pendency of the above appeal, the petitioner applied under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘VSV Scheme’) and paid the applicable amount determined by the competent authority after issuance of Form No.2 and Form No.4, in turn, was issued on 14.05.2025. She submitted that though such fact was duly brought to the notice of CIT(A)/NFAC yet, instead of deferring the hearing and disposing This is a digitally signed order. 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 14/07/2026 at 11:36:55
it of as per the provisions of the VSV Scheme, he remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
Against the aforesaid order of CIT(A)/NFAC, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) with a prayer that the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC be set aside as the petitioner’s entire demand stands modified/satisfied in terms of the settlement under VSV Scheme. She further submitted that to utter surprise of the petitioner, the Tribunal, instead of passing an order in accordance with law, has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal as withdrawn.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that to the petitioner’s dismay, even the miscellaneous application, which it had filed, also came to be dismissed.
Learned Counsel argued that as a consequence of the order passed by the Tribunal and the CIT(A)/NFAC, the petitioner’s concluded assessment proceedings stands revived in spite of the fact that the same has attained finality by virtue of the order passed under the VSV Scheme. She further submitted that the Tribunal has seriously erred in not setting aside the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC.
Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, had no valid argument to support such an approach of the CIT(A)/NFAC and the Tribunal.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the fact that the petitioner’s application for settlement of the dues under VSV Scheme had been accepted and the fact that due amount had been deposited and Form No.4 has been issued on 14.05.2025, the adjudication or assessment for that particular year became conclusive and final. This is a digitally signed order. 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 14/07/2026 at 11:36:55
It is admitted case of the parties that once Form No.2 was issued to the petitioner, the Appellate Authority i.e., CIT(A)/NFAC was informed and it was prayed that hearing of the appeal be deferred until issuance of final settlement order and then the appeal be disposed of in terms of the settlement. However, the Assessing Authority did not do what was expected of him. As a result thereof, before the petitioner’s right could be crystallized under the VSV Scheme, the CIT(A)/NFAC decided the petitioner’s appeal and set aside the assessment order and remanded the same back to the Assessing Officer.
Technically speaking, since the CIT(A)/NFAC’s order preceded the final order or issuance of Form No.4, the said order may not be said to be illegal. However, considering the mandate of law, we are of the view that the CIT(A)/NFAC, having learnt about the factum of filing of application under the VSV Scheme and Form No.2 dated 16.01.2025 having been issued and produced, respondent ought to have stayed his hands off and rather than deciding the appeal, he should have disposed the appeal as withdrawn, once Form no.4 was issued.
The approach of the CIT(A)/NFAC has resulted in multiplicity of litigation and unwarranted proceedings to be taken up by the assessee.
The impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC and order of the Tribunal dated 29.09.2025 and 08.05.2026 are, therefore, quashed and set aside being contrary to the spirit of VSV Scheme. Consequential proceedings and order, if any, in furtherance of order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC are also hereby quashed and set aside.
It is held that the certificate/Form No.4 dated 14.05.2025 shall remain This is a digitally signed order. 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 14/07/2026 at 11:36:55
conclusive, albeit in terms of the Scheme.
The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. All pending applications are also disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J JULY 10, 2026/kk This is a digitally signed order. 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 14/07/2026 at 11:36:55
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
