JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Shah for the petitioner, learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for respondent No.1 and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for respondent No.2. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsels for the respondents waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 3. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. This petition is preferred to challenge the order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 91 of the Finance (No.2)Act,2024 denying the benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme,2024 [‘DTVSV Scheme’ for short]. 5. The petitioner has also preferred Special Civil Application No. 6458/2022 challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] dated 31.03.2021 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. This Court, by order dated 30.03.2022, has stayed further proceedings pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment. 6. However, the respondent-Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order on 30.03.2022 and no final assessment order was passed in view of the interim order granted by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6458/2022. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that for the Assessment Year 2015-16, the petitioner filed return of income on 18.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 1,19,413/- and thereafter, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. The petitioner filed the return in response to the said notice on 12.01.2022. 7.2 Thereafter, the petitioner filed objections on 01.03.2022 which were disposed of by order dated 10.03.2022. 7.3 The petitioner challenged the order disposing of the objections along with notice issued under section 148 of the Act by preferring Special Civil Application No. 6458 of 2022. 7.4 During the pendency of the petition before this Court, DTVSV Scheme,2024 was introduced by Finance (No.2) Act,2024. The petitioner therefore, filed declaration in Form No.1 on 29.01.2025 as required under section 91 of the Finance (No.2) Act,2024 in view of the pendency of the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6548 of 2022 accepting the draft assessment order as final assessment order. The petitioner therefore, filed declaration in Form No.1 on 29.01.2025 as required under section 91 of the Finance (No.2) Act,2024 in view of the pendency of the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6548 of 2022 accepting the draft assessment order as final assessment order. 7.5 However, the respondent No.1- Designated Authority, however, rejected the declaration filed by the petitioner by making the following remarks on 13.02.2025: “not eligible in DTVSV,2024 as the matter is pending with Hon’ble High Court. The case not eligible for scheme VSVS 2024.” Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah for the petitioner submitted that as per the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, the disputed tax is defined in clause (j) of section 89(1) of the Finance (No.2) Act,2024. It was pointed out that as per sub-clause (A), “disputed tax” means in a case where the appeal, writ petition or special leave petition is pending before the appellate forum as on the specified date, the amount of tax that is payable by the appellant if such appeal or writ petition or special leave petition was to be decided against him. 8.1 It was submitted that the petitioner was eligible to file declaration as per section 91(3) of the Scheme as the petitioner has filed writ petition before this Court challenging notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the petitioner is willing to withdraw the said petition as provided in the said section. 8.2 It was submitted that the respondent-Assessing Officer has passed the draft assessment order on 30.03.2022 whereby, liability to pay tax was crystallized subject to the objections to be raised by the petitioner as provided under section 144C of the Act. Learned advocate Mr. Shah invited attention of the Court to the draft assessment order placed on record at Annexure C and computation made in Para 8 thereof whereby, the total assessed income is determined at Rs. 2,17,57,910/-. It was therefore, submitted that the petitioner has not filed any objection against such assessed income determined and accordingly, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax on such determined assessed income in absence of any objection to be raised. 2,17,57,910/-. It was therefore, submitted that the petitioner has not filed any objection against such assessed income determined and accordingly, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax on such determined assessed income in absence of any objection to be raised. 8.3 It was submitted that as the petitioner now wants to avail the benefit of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, there is no question of raising any objection to the draft assessment order which is already passed by the respondent-Assessing Officer on 30.03.2022 determining the assessed income and therefore, the petitioner should be held eligible for DTVSV Scheme, 2024. 8.4 Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that section 91 of the Finance (No.2) Act,2024 is for settling of the disputes pending between the assessee and the Department and the respondent- Assessing Officer could not have rejected the declaration filed by the petitioner because of the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. 8.5 It was submitted that as the petitioner is eligible for benefit of DTVSV Scheme, 2024, only in view of the pendency of the writ petition as provided in the definition of “appellant” . Sub- clause (i)of clause (a) of section 89(1) of the Finance (No.2) Act,2024 defines “appellant” which means the person in whose case an appeal or writ petition or special leave petition has been filed by him and such writ petition is pending on the specified date. It was pointed out that sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 89(1) also defines “appellant” which means even if the person who has filed his objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144C of the Act and no directions are issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel on or before the specified date, then also such assessee is eligible to be treated as the appellant. Referring to sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of section 89(1), it was pointed out that even if directions are issued by Dispute Resolution Panel, but the Assessing Officer has not completed assessment under sub-section 13 of section 144C of the Act on or before the specified date, then also, the assessee would be covered by the definition of appellant so as to be eligible under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024. 8.6 It was submitted that the case of the petitioner is on better footing as the writ petition filed by the petitioner being Special Civil Application No. 6458 of 2022 was pending when the petitioner filed declaration in Form No. 1 as provided under section 91 of the Finance (No.2) Act,2024 seeking settlement of disputes. 8.7 It was therefore, submitted that the respondents may be directed to accept the declaration Form No.1 filed by the petitioner under DTVSV Scheme,2024. 9. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that passing of draft assessment order cannot be considered as determination of the tax payable by the petitioner/assessee. He invited attention to Question No. 26 in Circular No. 12/2024 dated 15.10.2024 issued by the CBDT in form of Frequently Asked Questions [‘FAQs’ for short] in connection with DTVSV Scheme to point out that in a case, where writ is filed against the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and no assessment order has been passed consequent to such notice, then such case would not be eligible for benefit under DTVSV Scheme as the income in such case is yet to be determined and disputed tax is not ascertainable. It was therefore, submitted that in the facts of the case, when no assessment order is passed determining assessed income liable to tax and only draft assessment order was passed and therefore, the benefit of DTVSV Scheme is rightly denied by the respondent-Assessing Officer. 10. Having heard learned advocates for the respondents and considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petition being Special Civil Application No. 6458 of 2024 is pending when the petitioner filed the declaration in Form No.1 under DTVSV Scheme, 2024. 11. Section 89(1)(a) defines “appellant” which reads as under: “89. 10. Having heard learned advocates for the respondents and considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petition being Special Civil Application No. 6458 of 2024 is pending when the petitioner filed the declaration in Form No.1 under DTVSV Scheme, 2024. 11. Section 89(1)(a) defines “appellant” which reads as under: “89. (1) In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) “appellant” means— (i) a person in whose case an appeal or a writ petition or special leave petition has been filed either by him or by the income-tax authority or by both, before an appellate forum and such appeal or petition is pending as on the specified date; or (ii) a person who has filed his objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144C of the Income-tax Act and the Dispute Resolution Panel has not issued any direction on or before the specified date; or (iii) a person in whose case the Dispute Resolution Panel has issued direction under sub-section (5) of section 144C of the Income-tax Act and the Assessing Officer has not completed the assessment under sub- section (13) of that section on or before the specified date; or (iv) a person who has filed an application for revision under section 264 of the Income-tax Act and such application is pending as on the specified date;” 12. On perusal of the aforesaid definition, the case of the petitioner is covered as the writ petition filed by the petitioner was pending as on the specified date. Clause (j) contained in section 89(1) defines the ‘disputed tax’ which reads as under: “(j) “disputed tax”, in relation to an assessment year or financial year, as the case may be, means the income-tax including surcharge and cess (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the amount of tax) payable by the appellant under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, as computed hereunder:— (A) in a case where any appeal, writ petition or special leave petition is pending before the appellate forum as on the specified date, the amount of tax that is payable by the appellant if such appeal or writ petition or special leave petition was to be decided against him.” 13. On perusal of the above definition it appears that in the facts of the case, draft assessment order is passed on 30.03.2022 determining the amount of tax payable by the petitioner and if the writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the notice issued under section 148 of the Act which is to be dismissed, then such determination of the tax in draft assessment order would be final if the petitioner does not object to such determination of assessed income. 14. Section 144C of the Act provides for an opportunity to the assessee to challenge the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel and provides the mechanism and procedure for passing final assessment order after the Dispute Resolution Panel decides the objection received from the assessee. 15. In the facts of the case, the draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act is already passed on 30.03.2022 when this Court passed the interim order granting stay against the further proceedings. As the petitioner has filed declaration in Form No.1, it is apparent that the petitioner is not desirous to file any objection under section 144C of the Act against the draft assessment order and therefore, the Assessing Officer is required to pass the final assessment order. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 144C provide as under: “(2) On receipt of the draft order, the eligible assessee shall, within thirty days of the receipt by him of the draft order, (a)file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer; or (b)file his objections, if any, to such variation with, (i)the Dispute Resolution Panel; and (ii)the Assessing Officer. (3)The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order, if- (a)the assessee intimates to the Assessing Officer the acceptance of the variation; or (b)no objections are received within the period specified in sub-section (2).” 16. Section 144C(3)(b) provides that the Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on the basis of the draft assessment order, if no objections are received within thirty days’ time period as specified in sub-section (2). Therefore, in the facts of the case, the assessed income determined in draft assessment order would become the final assessed income upon which, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax as there is no objection to be filed by the petitioner for filing benefit under the DTVSV Scheme,2024. 17. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the assessed income determined in draft assessment order would become the final assessed income upon which, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax as there is no objection to be filed by the petitioner for filing benefit under the DTVSV Scheme,2024. 17. In view of the above foregoing reasons, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent-Assessing Officer is not tenable as the facts arising in the present case are not envisaged in Question No.26 in FAQs by the CBDT. FAQ No.26 reads as under: Writ on 148/148A notice 26 If a writ has been filed against a notice issued under section 148/148A of the Act and no assessment order has been passed consequent to that notice, whether such cases are eligible under the Scheme? The income in such cases is yet to be determined. Therefore, the disputed tax is not ascertainable. Thus, the taxpayer would not be eligible for the Scheme in such cases. 18. The above answer to the question is given by the CBDT in context of income determined by the respondent-Assessing Officer at the relevant time of challenge to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act whereas, in the facts of the case, the petitioner would be eligible for DTVSV Scheme, 2024 as the draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act is already passed on 30.03.2022 when this Court granted interim relief. 19. Therefore, in the facts of the case, impugned order dated 13.02.2025 rejecting the declaration in Form No.1 filed by the petitioner under DTVSV Scheme, 2024 is quashed and set aside and the respondent- Assessing Officer is directed to process the declaration in Form No.1 made by the petitioner as per the DTVSV Scheme, 2024 as the petitioner would be eligible for the same. 20. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 21. The respondent-designated authority is further directed to complete the process of declaration within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.