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?
Yes. An appeal is 'pending' within section 2(1)(a) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 from the moment it is filed until it is disposed of; admission of the appeal is not the test. The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection and held that the answer to FAQ 59 of CBDT Circular 21/2020 — which required the limitation to have expired between 1 April 2019 and 31 January 2020, the condonation application to have been filed before 4 December 2020, and the appeal to have been admitted before the declaration — introduced conditions found nowhere in the Act.
Decided by the High Court (Rajiv Shakdher J and Talwant Singh J) on 2021-03-03, reported as Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020; W.P.(C) 2291/2021 and CM APPL. 6677/2021 (Delhi High Court). It bears on section DTVSV 2020 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the decision that broke the department's practice of treating an unadmitted, time-barred appeal as no appeal at all, and it did so by attacking the FAQ rather than the facts — a route that works wherever a designated authority relies on a circular answer that goes beyond the statute. Two limits are worth carrying. First, the Court expressly said it could have appreciated the Revenue's stand if the condonation plea had already been REJECTED by the CIT(A) before Forms 1 and 2 were filed; on that footing nothing would have been pending. Second, the rejection here was uploaded on the portal with the single word 'rejected' and no reasons at all, which is part of why it fell. The same 'pending as on the specified date' architecture reappears in the 2024 Scheme, whose specified date is recorded in Ramasamy HUF as 22 July 2024, so the reasoning has continuing use — though the exact wording of the 2024 provision was not verified on this pass.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee filed his return for AY 2011-12 on 12 May 2012 declaring Rs 49,32,900 and claiming exemption under s.54, so that capital gains were returned as nil. A s.148 notice issued on 29 March 2018 led to a reassessment order dated 26 December 2018 disallowing the s.54 exemption and assessing income at Rs 3,08,94,767. He filed an appeal to the CIT(A) on 11 July 2019, in the prescribed format, which itself contained a column for the grounds of condonation; the limitation had expired on 3 February 2019. After the 2020 Act received assent on 17 March 2020 he filed Forms 1 and 2 on 12 June 2020 and pressed for processing on 21 August 2020 and before the Grievance Committee on 18 November 2020. On 14 December 2020 the department asked him to file a condonation letter from the CIT(A). On 27 January 2021 the Grievance Committee told him his grievance stood 'fully resolved'; on 28 January 2021 the portal recorded his request as 'rejected', with no reasons. The Revenue's case was that the appeal could count as pending only if the condonation application had been filed before the circular of 4 December 2020 and the appeal admitted by the CIT(A) before Forms 1 and 2 were filed.
The order of rejection dated 28 January 2021 was bad in law and was set aside, and the designated authority was directed to process Forms 1 and 2 under the 2020 Act (paras 26 and 27). An appeal is 'pending' for s.2(1)(a) of the 2020 Act from when it is first filed until it is adjudicated upon and disposed of; the Act does not require that it be admitted before the specified date, and the designated authority wrongly equated admission with pendency (para 24). The answer to FAQ 59 in Circular 21/2020 travelled beyond the Act and beyond the query it purported to answer (paras 21 and 22).
The Court began from the definition of "appellant" in s.2(1)(a)(i) and the definition of "specified date", which it extracted alongside it (para 18): the appeal must have been filed before an appellate forum and be pending as on the specified date, 31 January 2020. It found that those provisions say nothing about the conditions the Revenue was urging (para 20). Setting FAQ 59 against the query it answered, the Court held the answer had added several facets not found in the Act — a window of 1 April 2019 to 31 January 2020 for the expiry of limitation, a cut-off of 4 December 2020 for the condonation application, and a requirement of admission before the declaration (paras 21 and 22). It accepted that the appeal could not be admitted until the delay was condoned, but held that this does not efface the fact that the appeal was pending; pendency runs from filing to disposal (para 24). Because the CIT(A) was still seized of the appeal including the condonation plea when Forms 1 and 2 were filed, something was pending before the appellate forum, and the rejection could not stand (paras 24 and 25).
Respondent no.1 seems to have, in our view, wrongly equated admission of the appeal with pendency.
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. An appeal is 'pending' within section 2(1)(a) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 from the moment it is filed until it is disposed of; admission of the appeal is not the test. The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection and held that the answer to FAQ 59 of CBDT Circular 21/2020 — which required the limitation to have expired between 1 April 2019 and 31 January 2020, the condonation application to have been filed before 4 December 2020, and the appeal to have been admitted before the declaration — introduced conditions found nowhere in the Act. This was decided by the High Court (Rajiv Shakdher J and Talwant Singh J) and bears on section DTVSV 2020 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020; W.P.(C) 2291/2021 and CM APPL. 6677/2021 (Delhi High Court). This is the decision that broke the department's practice of treating an unadmitted, time-barred appeal as no appeal at all, and it did so by attacking the FAQ rather than the facts — a route that works wherever a designated authority relies on a circular answer that goes beyond the statute. Two limits are worth carrying. First, the Court expressly said it could have appreciated the Revenue's stand if the condonation plea had already been REJECTED by the CIT(A) before Forms 1 and 2 were filed; on that footing nothing would have been pending. Second, the rejection here was uploaded on the portal with the single word 'rejected' and no reasons at all, which is part of why it fell. The same 'pending as on the specified date' architecture reappears in the 2024 Scheme, whose specified date is recorded in Ramasamy HUF as 22 July 2024, so the reasoning has continuing use — though the exact wording of the 2024 provision was not verified on this pass. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Establish the date the appeal was physically filed and show that the condonation prayer was part of the appeal memorandum itself — Form 35 has a column for it, which is what saved the petitioner here.
The assessee filed his return for AY 2011-12 on 12 May 2012 declaring Rs 49,32,900 and claiming exemption under s.54, so that capital gains were returned as nil. A s.148 notice issued on 29 March 2018 led to a reassessment order dated 26 December 2018 disallowing the s.54 exemption and assessing income at Rs 3,08,94,767. He filed an appeal to the CIT(A) on 11 July 2019, in the prescribed format, which itself contained a column for the grounds of condonation; the limitation had expired on 3 February 2019. After the 2020 Act received assent on 17 March 2020 he filed Forms 1 and 2 on 12 June 2020 and pressed for processing on 21 August 2020 and before the Grievance Committee on 18 November 2020. On 14 December 2020 the department asked him to file a condonation letter from the CIT(A). On 27 January 2021 the Grievance Committee told him his grievance stood 'fully resolved'; on 28 January 2021 the portal recorded his request as 'rejected', with no reasons. The Revenue's case was that the appeal could count as pending only if the condonation application had been filed before the circular of 4 December 2020 and the appeal admitted by the CIT(A) before Forms 1 and 2 were filed. The matter was decided on 2021-03-03 by the High Court (Rajiv Shakdher J and Talwant Singh J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The order of rejection dated 28 January 2021 was bad in law and was set aside, and the designated authority was directed to process Forms 1 and 2 under the 2020 Act (paras 26 and 27). An appeal is 'pending' for s.2(1)(a) of the 2020 Act from when it is first filed until it is adjudicated upon and disposed of; the Act does not require that it be admitted before the specified date, and the designated authority wrongly equated admission with pendency (para 24). The answer to FAQ 59 in Circular 21/2020 travelled beyond the Act and beyond the query it purported to answer (paras 21 and 22).
The Court began from the definition of "appellant" in s.2(1)(a)(i) and the definition of "specified date", which it extracted alongside it (para 18): the appeal must have been filed before an appellate forum and be pending as on the specified date, 31 January 2020. It found that those provisions say nothing about the conditions the Revenue was urging (para 20). Setting FAQ 59 against the query it answered, the Court held the answer had added several facets not found in the Act — a window of 1 April 2019 to 31 January 2020 for the expiry of limitation, a cut-off of 4 December 2020 for the condonation application, and a requirement of admission before the declaration (paras 21 and 22). It accepted that the appeal could not be admitted until the delay was condoned, but held that this does not efface the fact that the appeal was pending; pendency runs from filing to disposal (para 24). Because the CIT(A) was still seized of the appeal including the condonation plea when Forms 1 and 2 were filed, something was pending before the appellate forum, and the rejection could not stand (paras 24 and 25). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Respondent no.1 seems to have, in our view, wrongly equated admission of the appeal with pendency."
It was decided by the High Court on 2021-03-03 and is reported as Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020; W.P.(C) 2291/2021 and CM APPL. 6677/2021 (Delhi 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, 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 order of rejection dated 28 January 2021 was bad in law and was set aside, and the designated authority was directed to process Forms 1 and 2 under the 2020 Act (paras 26 and 27). An appeal is 'pending' for s.2(1)(a) of the 2020 Act from when it is first filed until it is adjudicated upon and disposed of; the Act does not require that it be admitted before the specified date, and the designated authority wrongly equated admission with pendency (para 24). The answer to FAQ 59 in Circular 21/2020 travelled beyond the Act and beyond the query it purported to answer (paras 21 and 22). It arises in Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section DTVSV 2020 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Rajiv Shakdher J and Talwant Singh 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. Check whether the condonation plea had been decided, one way or the other, before the declaration was filed; the case is strongest where the appellate authority was still seized of it. Where the authority relies on FAQ 59 or any other circular answer, put the statutory clause and the FAQ answer side by side in the writ and show which words in the answer have no counterpart in the Act. If the rejection was uploaded on the portal without reasons, ask for the reasons in writing first and annex the refusal; an unreasoned rejection is a separate and independent ground. Ask for the interim protection the bench gave on 19 February 2021 — that if the petition is allowed the declaration shall be deemed filed on the date it was actually filed and treated as within time.
Still good law. Followed by the Gujarat High Court in Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel v. Pr. CIT (Central), C/SCA/7441/2021, decided 23 September 2021, which reproduced paras 17 to 24 of this judgment, quashed the rejection of 30 March 2021 and directed the declaration to be accepted within three days (paras 27 to 29, 38 and 39 of that judgment, read this pass). No decision doubting or dissenting from it was located, but a systematic citator check was NOT carried out and none is claimed. 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 judgment carries an internal date inconsistency that is in the original and not a retrieval artefact: para 11 records the rejection of the request as having occurred on 28.01.2021, while para 17(v) says the CIT(A) had not dealt with the condonation plea 'as on the date of rejection, i.e., 12.06.2020' — 12.06.2020 being the date Forms 1 and 2 were filed (para 7.1). The same sentence appears verbatim in the Gujarat High Court's reproduction of paras 17 to 24 in Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel, which confirms the slip is the Delhi High Court's own. The document runs to para 27; paras 13.1 and 14 reproduce, respectively, the coordinate bench's order of 19.02.2021 and counsel's submissions, and no paragraph number has been taken from those blocks. The screenshot of the portal referred to in para 11 is not reproduced in the text. At para 18 the judgment labels the two definitions it extracts "Section 2 (1) a (i)" and "Section 2 (1) a (n)". The second is a slip in the report: "specified date" is defined in s.2(1)(n) of the 2020 Act, not in a clause (n) under s.2(1)(a). The definitional sequence confirms it — s.2(1)(j) is "disputed tax" and s.2(1)(o) is "tax arrear", both read this pass in Boddu Ramesh para 40 and Prayas Buildwell para 16. Nothing in the reasoning turns on the label. 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 order of rejection dated 28 January 2021 was bad in law and was set aside, and the designated authority was directed to process Forms 1 and 2 under the 2020 Act (paras 26 and 27). An appeal is 'pending' for s.2(1)(a) of the 2020 Act from when it is first filed until it is adjudicated upon and disposed of; the Act does not require that it be admitted before the specified date, and the designated authority wrongly equated admission with pendency (para 24). The answer to FAQ 59 in Circular 21/2020 travelled beyond the Act and beyond the query it purported to answer (paras 21 and 22).
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 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?
I settled an earlier year under Vivad se Vishwas. The CIT(A) is now using that settlement to sustain a disallowance in a later year. Can he?