- Case
- UMESH NAVNITLAL SHAH HUF v. INCOME TAX OFFICER-CIRCLE 18(3)(5) AND 2 ORS. (Bombay High Court, 08-01-2025)
- Law
- Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, Income-tax Act.
Facts: The Petitioner, Umesh Navnitlal Shah HUF, filed a writ petition challenging the calculation of the amount payable under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act). The petitioner contended that the calculation was incorrectly done at 125% of the disputed tax, treating it as a "search case," whereas it was a "non-search case" and should have been calculated at 100%. The petitioner also argued that additional grounds raised in appeals were not considered. The petitioner had initially conceded to adding Rs.2,02,50,919/- towards Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but later attempted to challenge this addition to avail additional benefits under the DTVSV Act.
Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction as a Writ Petition (WP No. 1090 of 2021) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including directions to accept the amount payable as determined by the petitioner and to grant a refund.
Issue: 1. Whether the calculation of the amount payable under the DTVSV Act should be based on 100% or 125% of the disputed tax, considering whether the case is a "search case" or a "non-search case"? 2. Whether the Respondents were justified in not considering the additional grounds raised by the Petitioner in the appeals for determining the disputed tax under the DTVSV Act, especially concerning the addition of Rs.2,02,50,919/- towards LTCG?
Holding: The Court held that the Petitioner's case should be treated as a "non-search case," and the computation should be at 100% of the disputed tax. However, the Court rejected the Petitioner's claim for including Rs.2,02,50,919/- for benefits under the DTVSV Act, stating that the Respondents were correct in refusing to consider the belated attempt to amend the appeal memo.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Respondents conceded that the Petitioner's case was a "non-search case," thus warranting a calculation at 100%. The Court relied on the decision in Bhupendra Harilal Mehta Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai-19. However, the Court found that the Petitioner had initially conceded to the addition of Rs.2,02,50,919/- towards LTCG and had not challenged it in the original appeal. The attempt to amend the appeal memo belatedly, after the specified date under the DTVSV Act, was an attempt to expand the scope of the dispute post facto, which is not permissible under the Act. The court stated, "The DTVSV Act aims to settle tax disputes pending in Courts...This Act is not some licence to revive settled disputes...or expand the scope of the disputes post facto".
