SHREE COAL COMPANY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that while the proposition that the Court cannot modify the cut-off date of the Scheme is correct, the issue needs to be viewed from the perspective of when the limitation to file an appeal begins. The Court noted that the impugned order rejected the application solely on the ground that no appeal was pending on 31.01.2020, despite the undisputed fact that an appeal along with a condonation of delay application filed on 07.01.2021 was pending. The Court found that the Commissioner, while dealing with the Vivad Se Vishwas application, had not considered the crucial aspect of the date of service of the re-assessment order, which has ramifications for the petitioner's eligibility under the Scheme. Determining the date of service is necessary to ascertain if the 'Vivad' was pending on the cut-off date. Consequently, the petition was disposed of by remitting the matter back to the concerned authority to decide the application filed under the Scheme afresh by passing a speaking order, without commenting on the petitioner's eligibility. The Department was advised to take steps for expeditious disposal of the appeal pending before the CIT(A), and the petitioner was granted liberty to request the Chief Commissioner for expeditious disposal of their condonation application.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Shree Coal Company, is challenging an order dated 31.03.2021 that rejected their application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The petitioner had filed a return for Assessment Year 2011-12, and proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulted in an ex-parte order dated 23.11.2018. The petitioner claims they gained knowledge of this order later, obtained a certified copy, and filed an appeal with a condonation of delay application before the CIT(A) on 07.01.2021, which remained pending. The rejection of the Vivad Se Vishwas application was based on the ground that no appeal was pending on the scheme's cut-off date of 31.01.2020.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner's application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, was rightly rejected on the ground that no appeal was pending as of the cut-off date of 31.01.2020, considering the dispute regarding the service of the re-assessment order? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue of service of the assessment order is pending before the CIT(A). They contended that the impugned order was passed without awaiting the decision on their appeal and condonation application, and without considering when the order was served and if the limitation period for appeal had expired by 31.01.2020. They relied on Circulars dated 22.04.2020 and 04.12.2020, stating that cases where the limitation to file an appeal had not expired by 31.01.2020 were covered under the Scheme. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent defended the impugned order, arguing that no appeal was pending on the cut-off date. They submitted that the High Court should not modify the cut-off date of the Scheme and that obtaining a certified copy of the re-assessment order does not extend the limitation period for filing an appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 01/07/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-
This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 31.03.2021 rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (for short ‘the Scheme’).
The brief facts are that the petitioner filed return for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) culminated in an ex-parte order dated 23.11.2018. There is a dispute with regard to the date of service of the re-assessment order.
(2 of 3) [CW-5367/2021]
As per the case set up by the petitioner, on gaining knowledge of the ex-parte order, the certified copy of order was obtained and appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (for short ‘CIT(A)’), on 07.01.2021 along with the application for condonation of delay. The appeal and the application are pending till date. The impugned order was passed on the ground that on the cut-off date of the Scheme i.e. 31.01.2020, no appeal of the petitioner was pending and the case was not covered under the Scheme.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue with regard to service of the assessment order is subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A). The impugned order was passed without waiting for the decision of the application/appeal and without going into the factum as to when the order was served and whether the period of limitation for filing of an appeal had expired on 31.01.2020. The reliance is placed upon circulars dated 22.04.2020 and 04.12.2020 to submit that in cases where the limitation to file appeal had not expired till 31.01.2020, such cases were covered under the Scheme.
Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. Submission is that no appeal was pending on the cut-off date. It is argued that in writ petition Court shall not modify the cut-off date of the Scheme. It is contended that obtaining the certified copy of re- assessment order shall not extend the limitation for filing appeal.
There cannot be a quibble with the proposition that Court cannot modify the cut-off date of the Scheme. The issue involved in the case in hand has to be seen from a different prospective i.e. date from which the limitation to file an appeal shall start.
From perusal of the impugned order, it is forthcoming that the only ground of rejection of the application is that no appeal was pending
(3 of 3) [CW-5367/2021] on 31.03.2021. It is undisputed fact that appeal against the re- assessment order along with the application for condonation of delay filed on 07.01.2021, is still pending.
While dealing with the application filed under the Scheme, the Commissioner had not considered the aspect of the date of service of the re-assessment order which has ramification on case of petitioner falling within the ambit of the Scheme. Dealing with date of service of re-assessment order would necessary for determining as to whether Vivad was pending on cut of date and case is covered under the Scheme.
Without commenting as to whether the petitioner was eligible under the Scheme, the petition is disposed of remitting the matter back to the authority concerned to decide the application filed under the Scheme, afresh by passing a speaking order.
The Department, if so advised, may take steps for expeditious disposal of the application pending before the CIT(A) against the re- assessment order. Further, the petitioner shall also be at liberty to make a request to the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax for expeditious disposal of the application for condonation of delay pending before the CIT(A).
The writ is accordingly disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat/Riya/51 Whether Reportable : Yes
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Salman vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 26 Oct 2026