The Petitioner challenged the rejection of her application under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -- The rejection was based on the ground that she had not filed an appeal against the Assessment Order -- The Court found that the Petitioner and her husband were governed by Section 5A of Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides for apportionment of income between spouses under Portuguese Civil Code -- The Petitioner's husband had filed an appeal covering both their incomes, and his application under the Scheme had been accepted -- The Court held that the rejection was arbitrary and contrary to the Scheme's objectives -- The Writ Petition was allowed, the impugned order quashed, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration
The High Court of Bombay at Goa allowed the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging the rejection of the Petitioner's application under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 -- The Court held that the rejection order dated 17.03.2021 was arbitrary and perverse as it failed to consider the peculiar circumstances under Section 5A of Income Tax Act, 1961 -- The Petitioner and her husband, governed by Portuguese Civil Code, had their income apportioned under Section 5A -- The Petitioner's husband had filed an appeal covering both their incomes, making a separate appeal by the Petitioner unnecessary -- The Court emphasized that the Scheme's objective was to settle disputes and the technical requirement of filing a separate appeal should not defeat this purpose -- The rejection order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration
The Writ Petition was allowed -- The impugned order dated 17.03.2021 was quashed and set aside -- The matter was remanded to the 1st Respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law -- The 1st Respondent was directed to decide the application within eight weeks
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 143
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 118 of 2024
Date of Decision: 2026-01-28
Case Title: Whether the Petitioner was entitled to avail benefits under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 despite not filing a separate appeal against the Assessment Order, considering the peculiar circumstances under Section 5A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the pendency of her husband's appeal covering her income
Before Judge: Suman Shyam J. , Amit S. Jamsandekar J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-GOA:123-DB
Advocate(s): Mr. Purushottam Karpe, Ms. Susan Linhares
Appellant: Smt. Sharen Nitiin Naik
Respondent: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, The Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 Margao Goa, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Panaji
Nature of Litigation: Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging administrative order
Remedy Sought: Petitioner sought quashing of rejection order dated 17.03.2021 and direction to consider her application under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020
Filing Reason: The Petitioner's application under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was rejected on the ground that she had not filed an appeal against the Assessment Order
Previous Decisions: Assessment Order dated 30.12.2016 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 -- Penalty order dated 16.06.2017 under Section 271(1)(C) read with Section 274 -- Rejection order dated 17.03.2021 by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Issues: Whether the rejection of Petitioner's application under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice Whether the Petitioner was entitled to Scheme benefits despite not filing a separate appeal against the Assessment Order, considering Section 5A of Income Tax Act, 1961
Submissions/Arguments: Petitioner's Counsel argued that rejection was arbitrary, without hearing, and failed to consider Section 5A circumstances -- Revenue argued that Petitioner was not entitled as she had not filed appeal against Assessment Order and there was delay in filing Petition
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the rejection order was arbitrary and perverse as it failed to consider the peculiar circumstances under Section 5A of Income Tax Act, 1961 -- Where spouses are governed by Portuguese Civil Code and income is apportioned under Section 5A, an appeal by one spouse covering both incomes satisfies the requirement for Scheme eligibility -- Technical requirements should not defeat the substantive objective of dispute settlement under the Scheme
Judgment Excerpts: The Court held that 'the impugned order is arbitrary and perverse and is contrary to the very object of the Scheme' -- 'The 1st Respondent has failed to consider the peculiar situation contemplated under Section 5A of the Income Tax Act, 1961' -- 'Merely because the Petitioner has not filed any Appeal against the Assessment Order in her individual capacity, that does not mean that the Petitioner is not entitled to avail the benefit of the Scheme'
Procedural History: Petitioner filed return on 15.03.2014 -- Assessment reopened under Section 147 on 30.12.2016 -- Penalty imposed on 16.06.2017 -- Petitioner's husband filed appeal on 10.09.2015 covering both incomes -- Petitioner filed appeal against penalty order -- Both applied under Scheme on 17.03.2021 -- Husband's application accepted on 28.08.2021 -- Petitioner's application rejected on 17.03.2021 -- Writ Petition filed in 2024
