Facts of the
Case
The petitioner, MUFG Bank Ltd., a foreign banking
company operating in India, was subjected to assessment proceedings for AY
2007–08 under Sections 143 read with 144C of the Income Tax Act. Various
additions were made by the Assessing Officer.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partly allowed
the appeal in favour of the assessee and partly against it. Both the assessee
and the revenue filed cross appeals before the High Court, and certain issues
also reached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition.
Subsequently, the assessee opted to settle a specific
dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act),
relating to ECB interest. However, the Department rejected the application on
the ground that the assessee had not opted to settle all pending appeals for
the same assessment year, including the SLP pending before the Supreme
Court.
Issues
Involved
- Whether an assessee is required to settle all pending
disputes/appeals for a particular assessment year under the DTVSV Act.
- Whether partial settlement of disputes (appeal-wise) is
permissible under the scheme.
- Whether the unit of settlement under the DTVSV Act is an assessment
year or an individual appeal/writ/SLP.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
- The DTVSV Act treats each appeal, writ, or SLP as a separate
dispute, not the entire assessment year.
- Sections 3 and 4 allow filing declaration for any appeal,
indicating flexibility.
- CBDT Circular No. 9/2020 (FAQs 36 & 40) supports that an
assessee may choose to settle only one appeal or multiple appeals
selectively.
- The dispute relating to ECB interest arose from a separate
remand proceeding, making it independent of other issues.
- The Department cannot compel settlement of unrelated matters
pending before different forums.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The assessment year is the unit of settlement, and all
disputes arising therein must be resolved together.
- FAQ Nos. 11 and 14 of CBDT Circular prohibit partial settlement
of disputes.
- The assessee cannot “pick and choose” issues and must settle entire
litigation for that year.
- Since the SLP was pending before the Supreme Court for the same AY,
it should have been included in the settlement.
Court’s
Findings / Judgment
- The Court held that the DTVSV Act is a beneficial/remedial
legislation, not a strict taxing or exemption statute, and must be
interpreted liberally.
- The unit of settlement is an appeal, writ, or SLP, and not
the assessment year.
- The use of the term “any appeal” clearly allows selective
settlement.
- FAQ-19 explicitly provides that an assessee can settle one or
more appeals independently, even within the same assessment year.
- The issues in different appeals were distinct and unconnected,
hence there was no obligation to settle all.
Court Order
/ Final Decision
- The rejection order of the Department was set aside.
- The Department was directed to reconsider the declaration
filed by the assessee under the DTVSV Act.
- Any consequential refund was to be processed within eight weeks.
Important
Clarifications by the Court
- DTVSV Act is a beneficial statute, hence requires purposive
and liberal interpretation.
- Appeal-wise settlement is permissible; full-year settlement is not mandatory.
- CBDT FAQs must be read harmoniously and cannot override statutory
provisions.
- Independent disputes arising from different proceedings need not be compulsorily clubbed.
- The judgment clarifies that “pick and choose” is barred within a single appeal, but not across different appeals.
Link to download the
order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/MMH25112022CW39732021_203601.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment