Gail (India) Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the impugned order, purportedly issued in exercise of rectification powers under Section 154, was without jurisdiction and illegal.
The petitioner submitted that the rectification order sought to alter an earlier order dated 01.11.2021 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 5(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. It was contended that even if any rectification was permissible, only the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, who had passed the original order, could undertake such rectification and not the Assessing Officer.
The petitioner further argued that Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be invoked because the order dated 01.11.2021 had been passed under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, which did not make Section 154 applicable. Reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court judgment in Satish Kumar Dhingra v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2024] 467 ITR 574 (Del).
The Revenue submitted that the rectification order became necessary after the Assessing Officer received an audit objection pointing out that the amount payable under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme had been incorrectly calculated while issuing the certificate under the 2020 Act. The Revenue also argued that the judgment in Satish Kumar Dhingra was distinguishable on facts.
