MS LATHA SHIVANNA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The Principal Commissioner of

Commissioner of Income Tax

The petitioner has also sought for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.883133400241220 rejecting the application of the petitioner under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, copy of which is produced at Annexure-L.

The petitioner submits that as against the assessment order dated 31.12.2019 for the assessment year 2016-2017, he had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which however recording the same to be inadmissible was dismissed while finding that there is non-compliance with the requirement under Section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee has failed to pay tax due on the income returned to him.

Though the petitioner asserts that he has in fact paid the tax due however, in light of the relief sought for under the direct tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, he submits that he is agreeable to pay the tax due in terms of Section 249(4)(a) of the Act within a reasonable time as may be pointed out by the authority.

Reliance is placed on the judgment by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of D.Komalakshi v/s The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Taking note that the petitioner’s application under the aforesaid scheme has been rejected noting non- compliance with the deposit of tax in terms of Section 249(4)(a) of the Act as per the endorsement at Annexure- L, the contentions raised by the petitioner calls for consideration. The Division Bench of this Court while noticing the conditions precedent under Section 249(a) of the Act has exercised its discretion while permitting assessee to pay the admitted amounts before the authority while directing the Commissioner appeals to consider the appeals on its merits.

Noting that the application of the petitioner under the direct tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme has been rejected solely on the ground of non-compliance for not having made deposit under Section 249(4)(a) of the Act it would be a fit case while taking note of the observations of the Division Bench referred to above to permit the

It is made clear that the respondent no.1 to consider processing of the petitioner’s application afresh in light of the restoration of the appeal as per the order passed herein.

It is made clear if the petitioner commits default in making payment within the time stipulated, the benefit of restoration of appeal and so also reconsideration by the respondent No.1 would stand revoked. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.