Case Law Details
Tarik Handa Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered a writ petition challenging an intimation/order dated 19.03.2025, reflected through a screenshot, by which the petitioner’s application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 was rejected.
The petitioner contended that no copy of the rejection order had been supplied or served upon him. It was only after making queries that he was informed that the Competent Authority had rejected his application on the ground that no assessment order was in existence on the date the application under the Scheme was filed.
The petitioner submitted that he had earlier filed W.P.(C) 2370/2023, in which the High Court had passed an interim order dated 24.02.2023. Under that interim order, the Assessing Officer was permitted to continue with the reassessment proceedings. However, if any assessment order adverse to the petitioner was passed, such order was directed not to be given effect to.
According to the petitioner, this interim direction led the Competent Authority to conclude that no assessment order existed on the date the application under the Scheme was filed.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had subsequently withdrawn the earlier writ petition. It observed that, technically or “hyper technically speaking,” the Competent Authority’s view might appear correct, but legally and purposively it was not. The Court held that, on the date when the application under the Scheme was filed, an assessment order had already been passed. The only restriction flowing from the interim order dated 24.02.2023 was that the assessment order could not be given effect to.
The Court explained that the expression “not be given effect to” meant that recovery proceedings and penalty proceedings, if any, could not be initiated. However, the existence of the assessment order itself could not be denied. The Court emphasized that there is a subtle but substantial distinction between the enforceability of an order and the existence of that order.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel further submitted that the period for applying under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 had already expired. Consequently, the petitioner could no longer submit a fresh application. It was also submitted that since the earlier application had already been rejected, any second application would not be entertained.
Taking note of these circumstances, the High Court granted the petitioner liberty to apply under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Court directed that the application be filed on or before 15.06.2026. It further directed that if the electronic facility or option for filing the application was no longer available, the concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) should permit the petitioner to submit the application physically.
Accordingly, the writ petition was partly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the intimation/order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1 being a screenshot), which reflected that the petitioner’s application under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme of 2024) has been rejected.
2. The petitioner has asserted that though no copy of order etc. was supplied/served to him, but it was only pursuant to queries raised by the petitioner, he was informed that the Competent Authority had rejected his application because, on the date of filing of the application, no assessment order was in existence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, that on previous occasion the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) 2370/2023, wherein an interim order dated 24.02.2023 was passed by the High Court to the effect that the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to continue with the reassessment proceedings, but in case any assessment order being adverse to the interest of the petitioner is passed, it shall not be given effect to.
4. Learned counsel submitted that such stipulation made in the order passed by this Court, led the Competent Authority to form an opinion that, on the date when the application was filed, no assessment order was in existence.
5. There is no gainsaying the fact that subsequently, the petitioner had withdrawn the said application. Hence, technically, rather hyper technically speaking, the Competent Authority might be correct, but legally and purposively, it was not. Because, on the date when the application was filed, an assessment order had already been passed and it was only because of the interim order (dated 24.02.2023) passed by this Court, the same was not given effect to.
6. The expression ‘not be given effect to’ means that the recovery proceedings and penalty proceedings, if any, shall not be initiated. But the existence of the order cannot be denied — there is a subtle yet substantial difference between enforceability of an order vis-ci-vis Be that as it may.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture informed that the right of the petitioner to apply under the Scheme of 2024 has since expired, hence, he cannot apply afresh. He also submitted that since the petitioner’s application has been rejected, his second application will not be entertained.
8. Having regard to the facts noted above, we allow the petitioner a liberty to apply under the Scheme of 2024. The application be filed latest by 15.06.2026. In case, the facility or option of filing the application form electronically, is not prevalent, the concerned PCIT shall allow the petitioner to file an application physically.
9. Writ petition stands allowed partly.
Author Bio
