My 2024 Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected under section 96 as a search case, but the only departmental action in my case was a survey. Can the authority do that?
No. Section 96(a)(i) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 excludes an assessment year only where the assessment under section 143(3), 144, 147, 153A or 153C was made on the basis of a search initiated under section 132 or a requisition under section 132A. A survey under section 133A is consciously omitted from section 96, so the embargo does not operate; the Orissa High Court quashed the rejection and remitted the declaration for fresh consideration on merits.
Decided by the High Court (Harish Tandon CJ and Murahari Sri Raman J) on 2025-05-06, reported as Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024; W.P.(C) No.12426 of 2025 (Orissa High Court). It bears on section DTVSV 2024, section 132, section 132A, section 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals, Search, Survey & Block Assessment and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
The 2024 Scheme's exclusion is drafted differently from its 2020 predecessor, and the difference matters. Section 9(a)(i) of the 2020 Act, as reproduced in Govindrajulu Naidu and Prayas Buildwell, excluded a search assessment only where the disputed tax exceeded five crore rupees; section 96(a)(i) of the 2024 Scheme, reproduced in full in this judgment, carries no monetary threshold at all and adds section 147 to the list of assessment sections — so under the 2024 Scheme every genuine search assessment is out, whatever the amount. That makes the search-or-survey characterisation, and the requirement that the assessment be made ON THE BASIS OF the search, the only battleground left. The decision also puts the burden squarely on the authority: it may not infer a search from nothing, and it may not depart from the Assessing Officer's own account of how the proceeding began without recording proper reasons. The other section 96 exclusions in the same reproduction are prosecution instituted before the declaration, undisclosed foreign income or assets, assessments on exchange-of-information material, COFEPOSA detenus, persons prosecuted or convicted under the UAPA, NDPS Act, Benami Act, Prevention of Corruption Act or PMLA, persons prosecuted by an income-tax authority under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and persons notified under section 3 of the Special Court Act 1992.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee's return for AY 2014-15 was processed under s.143(1). On information about certain claims, a survey under s.133A was conducted on 5 December 2015 by the DDIT (Investigation), Rourkela at the registered address of two companies of which he appears to have been Managing Director, and the report was forwarded for action. By assessment order dated 2 May 2023 the Assessing Officer held the long-term capital gain claimed under s.10(38) on the sale of the scrips of those two companies to be bogus, treated the sale consideration credited in the capital account as unexplained income, assessed the income under s.147 read with s.144B, and initiated penalty under s.271(1)(c). The appeal against that order was pending before the CIT(A). While it was pending the assessee applied under the 2024 Scheme, and by order dated 4 February 2025 uploaded on the website the application was rejected on the footing that the proceedings had been initiated on the basis of a search under s.132 and so fell within s.96 of the Scheme.
The rejection order dated 4 February 2025 was quashed and set aside and the matter remitted to the authority under the Scheme to decide afresh on merits on the documents available (paras 9 and 10). Section 96 excludes an assessment year only where the assessment under s.143(3), s.144, s.147, s.153A or s.153C was initiated on the basis of a proceeding under s.132 or s.132A (para 6). A proceeding under s.133A is consciously omitted from s.96, so the embargo does not operate (para 8). In the absence of material justifying the opinion that the proceeding was initiated on a search under s.132, the authorities could not decide that it was, and could not depart from the Assessing Officer's own account without recording proper reasons (para 7).
The Court set out s.96 of the Scheme in full (para 5) and read clause (a)(i) as confined to assessments made on the basis of a search under s.132 or a requisition under s.132A (para 6). It then compared that with the assessment order itself, which recorded that the return had been processed under s.143(1) and that the proceeding arose from a survey under s.133A, with no reflection that it was an outcome of a s.132 search (para 6). Since the authority had no material justifying the contrary opinion, it could not have 'surreptitiously' arrived at the conclusion that the proceeding resulted from a search, and could not take a different view from the Assessing Officer's express recital without proper reasons (para 7). The omission of s.133A from s.96 being conscious, the exclusion did not operate and the rejection could not be justified (para 8).
Admittedly, the proceeding under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act is consciously omitted under Section 96 of the said Scheme and, therefore, the embargo created thereunder with regard to availment of the Scheme does not operate and, therefore, the order dated 4th February, 2025 impugned in the instant writ petition cannot be justified.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. Section 96(a)(i) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 excludes an assessment year only where the assessment under section 143(3), 144, 147, 153A or 153C was made on the basis of a search initiated under section 132 or a requisition under section 132A. A survey under section 133A is consciously omitted from section 96, so the embargo does not operate; the Orissa High Court quashed the rejection and remitted the declaration for fresh consideration on merits. This was decided by the High Court (Harish Tandon CJ and Murahari Sri Raman J) and bears on section DTVSV 2024, section 132, section 132A, section 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024; W.P.(C) No.12426 of 2025 (Orissa High Court). The 2024 Scheme's exclusion is drafted differently from its 2020 predecessor, and the difference matters. Section 9(a)(i) of the 2020 Act, as reproduced in Govindrajulu Naidu and Prayas Buildwell, excluded a search assessment only where the disputed tax exceeded five crore rupees; section 96(a)(i) of the 2024 Scheme, reproduced in full in this judgment, carries no monetary threshold at all and adds section 147 to the list of assessment sections — so under the 2024 Scheme every genuine search assessment is out, whatever the amount. That makes the search-or-survey characterisation, and the requirement that the assessment be made ON THE BASIS OF the search, the only battleground left. The decision also puts the burden squarely on the authority: it may not infer a search from nothing, and it may not depart from the Assessing Officer's own account of how the proceeding began without recording proper reasons. The other section 96 exclusions in the same reproduction are prosecution instituted before the declaration, undisclosed foreign income or assets, assessments on exchange-of-information material, COFEPOSA detenus, persons prosecuted or convicted under the UAPA, NDPS Act, Benami Act, Prevention of Corruption Act or PMLA, persons prosecuted by an income-tax authority under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and persons notified under section 3 of the Special Court Act 1992. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Take the assessment order and identify from its own recitals what triggered the proceeding — a survey under s.133A, an investigation report, or a search under s.132; the Court held the Assessing Officer's own account controls.
The assessee's return for AY 2014-15 was processed under s.143(1). On information about certain claims, a survey under s.133A was conducted on 5 December 2015 by the DDIT (Investigation), Rourkela at the registered address of two companies of which he appears to have been Managing Director, and the report was forwarded for action. By assessment order dated 2 May 2023 the Assessing Officer held the long-term capital gain claimed under s.10(38) on the sale of the scrips of those two companies to be bogus, treated the sale consideration credited in the capital account as unexplained income, assessed the income under s.147 read with s.144B, and initiated penalty under s.271(1)(c). The appeal against that order was pending before the CIT(A). While it was pending the assessee applied under the 2024 Scheme, and by order dated 4 February 2025 uploaded on the website the application was rejected on the footing that the proceedings had been initiated on the basis of a search under s.132 and so fell within s.96 of the Scheme. The matter was decided on 2025-05-06 by the High Court (Harish Tandon CJ and Murahari Sri Raman J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The rejection order dated 4 February 2025 was quashed and set aside and the matter remitted to the authority under the Scheme to decide afresh on merits on the documents available (paras 9 and 10). Section 96 excludes an assessment year only where the assessment under s.143(3), s.144, s.147, s.153A or s.153C was initiated on the basis of a proceeding under s.132 or s.132A (para 6). A proceeding under s.133A is consciously omitted from s.96, so the embargo does not operate (para 8). In the absence of material justifying the opinion that the proceeding was initiated on a search under s.132, the authorities could not decide that it was, and could not depart from the Assessing Officer's own account without recording proper reasons (para 7).
The Court set out s.96 of the Scheme in full (para 5) and read clause (a)(i) as confined to assessments made on the basis of a search under s.132 or a requisition under s.132A (para 6). It then compared that with the assessment order itself, which recorded that the return had been processed under s.143(1) and that the proceeding arose from a survey under s.133A, with no reflection that it was an outcome of a s.132 search (para 6). Since the authority had no material justifying the contrary opinion, it could not have 'surreptitiously' arrived at the conclusion that the proceeding resulted from a search, and could not take a different view from the Assessing Officer's express recital without proper reasons (para 7). The omission of s.133A from s.96 being conscious, the exclusion did not operate and the rejection could not be justified (para 8). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Admittedly, the proceeding under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act is consciously omitted under Section 96 of the said Scheme and, therefore, the embargo created thereunder with regard to availment of the Scheme does not operate and, therefore, the order dated 4th February, 2025 impugned in the instant writ petition cannot be justified."
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-05-06 and is reported as Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024; W.P.(C) No.12426 of 2025 (Orissa High Court). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section DTVSV 2024, section 132, section 132A, section 133A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The rejection order dated 4 February 2025 was quashed and set aside and the matter remitted to the authority under the Scheme to decide afresh on merits on the documents available (paras 9 and 10). Section 96 excludes an assessment year only where the assessment under s.143(3), s.144, s.147, s.153A or s.153C was initiated on the basis of a proceeding under s.132 or s.132A (para 6). A proceeding under s.133A is consciously omitted from s.96, so the embargo does not operate (para 8). In the absence of material justifying the opinion that the proceeding was initiated on a search under s.132, the authorities could not decide that it was, and could not depart from the Assessing Officer's own account without recording proper reasons (para 7). It arises in Appeals, Search, Survey & Block Assessment and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section DTVSV 2024, section 132, section 132A, section 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Harish Tandon CJ and Murahari Sri Raman J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If the rejection recites a search, demand the material on which the authority formed that opinion; the absence of any such material was fatal here. Point to the omission of s.133A from s.96 as deliberate, and resist any reading that treats a survey-driven reassessment as within the exclusion. Where the assessment is under s.147 read with s.144B and rests on investigation material rather than a search on the assessee, argue that the assessment was not made 'on the basis of' a s.132 search at all. If the rejection is a bare portal entry with no reasons, take that as a separate ground — the remedy the Court gave was to quash and remit for a reasoned decision on merits, not to direct acceptance.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No later decision cites this judgment of 6 May 2025 on the holding that a survey under s.133A is not a search for the purposes of s.96 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and no Supreme Court matter arising from it has been traced. Other records under the petitioner's name are earlier Orissa High Court proceedings involving the same person or unrelated excise matters. The silence reflects the age of the judgment rather than any doubt about it. It is a High Court judgment on a short point of construction, and the construction is the natural one: s.96(a)(i) names s.132 and s.132A and does not name s.133A, and the Court treated that omission as conscious. Three things limit how far it carries. It is a decision of the Orissa High Court, so it binds there and is persuasive elsewhere. The relief given was to quash the rejection and remit the declaration for a fresh decision on merits, not to direct that the declaration be accepted - so the assessee's entitlement under the Scheme was not itself decided. And the reasoning has two limbs that should be kept apart: the first is the construction of s.96, which is general; the second is that on this record there was no material for the authority's contrary opinion and it could not depart from the Assessing Officer's own recital without recording proper reasons, which is fact-specific and will not help where the authority has material and gives reasons. There is also a companion judgment. Kamalpat Dalmia v. Pr. CIT, W.P.(C) No. 12439 of 2025, was decided the same day by the same Bench on the same point, and it is worth citing alongside this one. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
A SLIP IN THE JUDGMENT, and it is in the original rather than in any copy of it. Paragraph 6 says the authority proceeded 'perceiving the initiation of a proceeding being an outcome of a survey under Section 132', where the sense requires 'search under Section 132'. The identical slip appears in the companion order in Kamalpat Dalmia v. Pr. CIT, W.P.(C) No. 12439 of 2025, decided the same day by the same Bench, which confirms that the words are the Court's and not a reproduction error. Quote paragraph 8 rather than paragraph 6 if the distinction between survey and search is the point being made. ON THE INSTRUMENT. The 2024 measure is a Scheme, not a standalone Act, and it should be described that way. Its s.96 (exclusions) is reproduced in full in this judgment at paragraph 5, and its s.92(4) (a declaration is not a concession) is referred to; the full range of its sections has not been verified for this entry, so do not take a section number for the 2024 Scheme from this page without checking it. ON THE STRUCTURE. The order runs to paragraph 10. Paragraph 5 is the statutory extract, paragraph 6 the construction of s.96(a)(i) against the assessment order's own recitals, paragraph 7 the finding that there was no material for the authority's opinion, paragraph 8 the holding on the conscious omission of s.133A, and paragraphs 9 and 10 the disposal. ON THE DATES, which differ between the two judgments. This judgment records the survey as conducted on 5 December 2015 and the assessment order as dated 2 May 2023. The Kamalpat order gives no survey date and an assessment order of 29 May 2023. If both are cited together, keep the facts separate. ON THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE 2020 ACT, which is the reason this point arises at all. Section 9(a)(i) of the 2020 Act excluded a search assessment only where the disputed tax exceeded five crore rupees. Section 96(a)(i) of the 2024 Scheme carries no monetary threshold and adds s.147 to the list of assessment sections. So under the 2024 Scheme every genuine search assessment is out whatever the amount, and the characterisation of the trigger - and the requirement that the assessment be made on the basis of the search - is the only ground left to fight on. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The rejection order dated 4 February 2025 was quashed and set aside and the matter remitted to the authority under the Scheme to decide afresh on merits on the documents available (paras 9 and 10). Section 96 excludes an assessment year only where the assessment under s.143(3), s.144, s.147, s.153A or s.153C was initiated on the basis of a proceeding under s.132 or s.132A (para 6). A proceeding under s.133A is consciously omitted from s.96, so the embargo does not operate (para 8). In the absence of material justifying the opinion that the proceeding was initiated on a search under s.132, the authorities could not decide that it was, and could not depart from the Assessing Officer's own account without recording proper reasons (para 7).
TaxSphere, “Ghanshyam Dalmia v Pr. CIT (Central)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/ghanshyam-dalmia-dtvsv-2024-survey-under-133a-is-not-a-search-for-section-96/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I paid under the 2020 scheme but never filed Form 4, so no final certificate came, and my appeal was then dismissed as if I had settled. Can I come into the 2024 Scheme instead?
The Revenue says my lender's settlement of her own addition under the 2024 Scheme cannot be used to show her creditworthiness, because section 92(4) says a declaration is not a concession. Is that right?
The variation in my assessment order is about six lakh rupees and my returned income was thirty-eight lakh. Filing a first appeal will take years. Is there anything else I can do, and what do I lose if I go that way?
My client never declared his crypto gains. Can he still put them right by an updated return, how long has he got, and what will it cost him?
