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?
Yes, on these facts. Under section 4(6) of the 2020 Act a declaration is presumed never to have been made where the declarant violates any condition of the Act, and in that event all proceedings and claims withdrawn under section 4 are deemed revived. The Madras High Court held that once the Tribunal had set aside the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on the erroneous footing that the scheme had been availed, the appeal against the assessment order stood revived and alive, and directed the designated authority to accept Form 1 filed on 26 December 2024 and issue Form 2 under the 2024 Scheme.
Decided by the High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy J) on 2025-04-23, reported as Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020; W.P.No.14496 of 2025 (Madras High Court). It bears on section DTVSV 2020, section DTVSV 2024 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the case for the declarant whose 2020 settlement died half-completed — money paid, no Form 4 filed, no final certificate issued — and who was then treated by the department as having both settled and lost. Section 4(6) is the provision that rescues it: a broken declaration is presumed never to have been made and everything withdrawn revives, which restores the appeal rather than leaving the assessee with nothing. The Court also records the specified date of the 2024 Scheme as 22 July 2024, which was the date the designated authority used to reject Form 1 on the ground that no appeal was pending; the answer was that the appeal had been revived and was alive. The order uses the language of a 'new appellant' and an 'old appellant' under the 2024 Scheme, but no rate or column from that Scheme is stated here because none was reproduced in the judgment. Practically, the lesson is that Form 4 is not a formality — the scheme is not complete until the intimation of payment is filed and the final certificate issues.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
For AY 2014-15 an order under s.143(3) dated 26 December 2016 assessed the assessee's income at Rs 54,45,200 and raised a demand of Rs 9,75,494. During the appeal before the CIT(A) the assessee opted for the 2020 scheme, filed Forms 1 and 2 on 25 March 2021 and received the designated authority's certificate on 23 April 2021; he had paid tax of Rs 52,970, but the designated authority omitted to record that payment. Believing the process complete, he never filed Form 4, which is mandatory. On 9 June 2023 the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order under s.250 dismissing the appeal on the erroneous ground that the assessee had availed the scheme, without hearing him. A rectification petition filed on 12 October 2023 was disposed of on 29 August 2024 by simply recording that the certificate had been issued and the appeal was to be deemed withdrawn. On coming to know that no final certificate had issued, the assessee paid the remaining tax due under the original assessment and appealed to the Tribunal, which by common order dated 25 November 2024 set aside the CIT(A)'s order of 9 June 2023 for de novo adjudication and held the appeal against the rectification order infructuous. He then filed Form 1 under the 2024 Scheme on 26 December 2024. The designated authority rejected it on 11 March 2025, the portal recording only that the appeal was not pending as on 22 July 2024. Departmental counsel fairly said the authority was unaware of the restoration of the appeal and would comply with any direction.
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Principal Commissioner to accept Form 1 and issue Form 2 by 28 April 2025, so that the assessee could avail the 2024 Scheme before the window closed on 30 April 2025, and to communicate the direction orally to the authority (paras 6.9 and 7). By virtue of s.4(6) of the 2020 Act and the Tribunal's order of 25 November 2024, and following the introduction of the 2024 Scheme with effect from 22 July 2024, the assessee was entitled to the Scheme because his appeal against the assessment order of 26 December 2016 was revived, restored and alive (para 6.8).
The Court found that the assessee's earlier attempt under the 2020 scheme had failed because he had not filed Form 4, which is mandatory (para 6.7). It set out s.4(6), under which a declaration is presumed never to have been made if any material particular is false, or the declarant violates any condition of the Act, or acts otherwise than in accordance with his undertaking, and in such cases all proceedings and claims withdrawn under s.4 and all consequences under the Income-tax Act are deemed revived (para 6.7). It found the CIT(A)'s dismissal of 9 June 2023 to be an ex parte order passed on an erroneous premise and without hearing (paras 6.3 and 6.4), and the disposal of the rectification petition to have ignored the fact that the scheme had not in truth been availed (para 6.4). Because the Tribunal had set that order aside, the appeal against the assessment order stood revived, and the assessee was accordingly eligible under the 2024 Scheme (paras 6.6 and 6.8). Departmental counsel's statement that the authority had simply been unaware of the restoration removed any contest (para 4).
In the light of the aforesaid facts, as discussed supra, it is clear that in terms of the aforesaid provision and by virtue of the order passed by ITAT dated 25.11.2024, and subsequent to the introduction of DTVSC Scheme, 2024, w.e.f. 22.07.2024, the petitioner is entitled to the DTVSV Scheme, inasmuch as, the Appeal filed by the petitioner as against the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 was revived/restored/alive.
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 WhatsAppYes, on these facts. Under section 4(6) of the 2020 Act a declaration is presumed never to have been made where the declarant violates any condition of the Act, and in that event all proceedings and claims withdrawn under section 4 are deemed revived. The Madras High Court held that once the Tribunal had set aside the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on the erroneous footing that the scheme had been availed, the appeal against the assessment order stood revived and alive, and directed the designated authority to accept Form 1 filed on 26 December 2024 and issue Form 2 under the 2024 Scheme. This was decided by the High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy J) and bears on section DTVSV 2020, section DTVSV 2024 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020; W.P.No.14496 of 2025 (Madras High Court). This is the case for the declarant whose 2020 settlement died half-completed — money paid, no Form 4 filed, no final certificate issued — and who was then treated by the department as having both settled and lost. Section 4(6) is the provision that rescues it: a broken declaration is presumed never to have been made and everything withdrawn revives, which restores the appeal rather than leaving the assessee with nothing. The Court also records the specified date of the 2024 Scheme as 22 July 2024, which was the date the designated authority used to reject Form 1 on the ground that no appeal was pending; the answer was that the appeal had been revived and was alive. The order uses the language of a 'new appellant' and an 'old appellant' under the 2024 Scheme, but no rate or column from that Scheme is stated here because none was reproduced in the judgment. Practically, the lesson is that Form 4 is not a formality — the scheme is not complete until the intimation of payment is filed and the final certificate issues. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Check whether the final certificate was ever issued; if payment was made but Form 4 was never filed, the settlement is incomplete and s.4(6) of the 2020 Act is the route back.
For AY 2014-15 an order under s.143(3) dated 26 December 2016 assessed the assessee's income at Rs 54,45,200 and raised a demand of Rs 9,75,494. During the appeal before the CIT(A) the assessee opted for the 2020 scheme, filed Forms 1 and 2 on 25 March 2021 and received the designated authority's certificate on 23 April 2021; he had paid tax of Rs 52,970, but the designated authority omitted to record that payment. Believing the process complete, he never filed Form 4, which is mandatory. On 9 June 2023 the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order under s.250 dismissing the appeal on the erroneous ground that the assessee had availed the scheme, without hearing him. A rectification petition filed on 12 October 2023 was disposed of on 29 August 2024 by simply recording that the certificate had been issued and the appeal was to be deemed withdrawn. On coming to know that no final certificate had issued, the assessee paid the remaining tax due under the original assessment and appealed to the Tribunal, which by common order dated 25 November 2024 set aside the CIT(A)'s order of 9 June 2023 for de novo adjudication and held the appeal against the rectification order infructuous. He then filed Form 1 under the 2024 Scheme on 26 December 2024. The designated authority rejected it on 11 March 2025, the portal recording only that the appeal was not pending as on 22 July 2024. Departmental counsel fairly said the authority was unaware of the restoration of the appeal and would comply with any direction. The matter was decided on 2025-04-23 by the High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Principal Commissioner to accept Form 1 and issue Form 2 by 28 April 2025, so that the assessee could avail the 2024 Scheme before the window closed on 30 April 2025, and to communicate the direction orally to the authority (paras 6.9 and 7). By virtue of s.4(6) of the 2020 Act and the Tribunal's order of 25 November 2024, and following the introduction of the 2024 Scheme with effect from 22 July 2024, the assessee was entitled to the Scheme because his appeal against the assessment order of 26 December 2016 was revived, restored and alive (para 6.8).
The Court found that the assessee's earlier attempt under the 2020 scheme had failed because he had not filed Form 4, which is mandatory (para 6.7). It set out s.4(6), under which a declaration is presumed never to have been made if any material particular is false, or the declarant violates any condition of the Act, or acts otherwise than in accordance with his undertaking, and in such cases all proceedings and claims withdrawn under s.4 and all consequences under the Income-tax Act are deemed revived (para 6.7). It found the CIT(A)'s dismissal of 9 June 2023 to be an ex parte order passed on an erroneous premise and without hearing (paras 6.3 and 6.4), and the disposal of the rectification petition to have ignored the fact that the scheme had not in truth been availed (para 6.4). Because the Tribunal had set that order aside, the appeal against the assessment order stood revived, and the assessee was accordingly eligible under the 2024 Scheme (paras 6.6 and 6.8). Departmental counsel's statement that the authority had simply been unaware of the restoration removed any contest (para 4). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In the light of the aforesaid facts, as discussed supra, it is clear that in terms of the aforesaid provision and by virtue of the order passed by ITAT dated 25.11.2024, and subsequent to the introduction of DTVSC Scheme, 2024, w.e.f. 22.07.2024, the petitioner is entitled to the DTVSV Scheme, inasmuch as, the Appeal filed by the petitioner as against the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 was revived/restored/alive."
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-04-23 and is reported as Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020; W.P.No.14496 of 2025 (Madras 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 2020, section DTVSV 2024, 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 writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Principal Commissioner to accept Form 1 and issue Form 2 by 28 April 2025, so that the assessee could avail the 2024 Scheme before the window closed on 30 April 2025, and to communicate the direction orally to the authority (paras 6.9 and 7). By virtue of s.4(6) of the 2020 Act and the Tribunal's order of 25 November 2024, and following the introduction of the 2024 Scheme with effect from 22 July 2024, the assessee was entitled to the Scheme because his appeal against the assessment order of 26 December 2016 was revived, restored and alive (para 6.8). It arises in Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section DTVSV 2020, section DTVSV 2024 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Krishnan Ramasamy 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. Where an appellate authority has dismissed an appeal on the erroneous footing that the scheme was availed, and did so without a hearing, attack that order first — the revival of the appeal is what makes a later declaration possible. In the fresh declaration, show that the appeal was pending or revived as on the specified date of the scheme being invoked; the department here rejected Form 1 solely on the portal entry that no appeal was pending on 22 July 2024. Watch the last date: the Court expedited its direction because the window was about to close, and asked counsel to communicate the order orally to the authority. Keep the payment evidence: the designated authority here had omitted the tax actually paid when issuing its certificate, which is what set the whole sequence in motion.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed. No later treatment was searched for or located. The order was made on a concession by Departmental counsel that any direction would be complied with, and it is expressly tied to the closing date of the 2024 Scheme, so its value as authority on the s.4(6) point should not be overstated. The typographical slips noted in the editor note weaken it further as a source for the Forms sequence. 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.
The order describes Form-3 as 'nothing but an intimation of payment made by the declarant' and Form-4 as 'the final order issued by the Designated authority' (para 6.1). That description is inconsistent with the same order's own facts, which record Form-3 as issued BY the designated authority on 23 April 2021 containing the particulars of tax arrears and the amount payable, and with the sequence described by the Madras High Court itself in Ansaldo Energia (Form-3 the designated authority's certificate under s.5(1) with Rule 4, Form-4 the declarant's intimation of payment under Rule 5, Form-5 the final order under Rule 7). Treat para 6.1's labels as a slip and the sequence in Ansaldo as correct. The order also cites 'Section 1 of DTVSV Act, 2020' at paras 3.1 and 6.7 when the provision it then reproduces is s.4(6). The phrase 'old appellant' at para 3 is counsel's, not the Court's. The 2024 Scheme's specified date of 22 July 2024 appears at paras 3.1, 6.6 and 6.8 and in the rejection reason; no other source for that date was read this pass. Paras 3 to 4 are counsel's submissions. The order runs to para 7, with sub-paragraphs 3.1 and 6.1 to 6.9. The text of s.4(6) of the 2020 Act reproduced at para 6.7 is the only verbatim reproduction of that sub-section obtained on this or the verification pass; it could not be corroborated against a second document, and the extract of s.4 in Manohar Lal Poddar was not shown to carry sub-sections (6) and (7). The sub-section number is nevertheless sound: s.4(1) and (2) are reproduced independently at para 15 of Prayas Buildwell, and the sub-section quoted here is expressly "The declaration under sub-section (1)…" of the same section. 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 writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Principal Commissioner to accept Form 1 and issue Form 2 by 28 April 2025, so that the assessee could avail the 2024 Scheme before the window closed on 30 April 2025, and to communicate the direction orally to the authority (paras 6.9 and 7). By virtue of s.4(6) of the 2020 Act and the Tribunal's order of 25 November 2024, and following the introduction of the 2024 Scheme with effect from 22 July 2024, the assessee was entitled to the Scheme because his appeal against the assessment order of 26 December 2016 was revived, restored and alive (para 6.8).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My Vivad se Vishwas Form 1 was rejected because my CIT(A) appeal was filed late and the delay had still not been condoned on 31 January 2020. Was my appeal 'pending' for the 2020 scheme?
My Tribunal appeal was more than a year late and the delay was condoned only in February 2021, well after CBDT's 4 December 2020 circular. The designated authority says FAQ 59 therefore cannot help me. Is that right?
The designated authority rejected my Form 1 saying there was no disputed tax because my own return was accepted, so my appeal was incompetent. Can it go into whether my appeal was maintainable?
My Form 3 charges the higher search-case amount because the addition against me came out of a search on somebody else. Is mine a 'search case' under the 2020 scheme?