1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Admit.

3. With consent and at the request of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard forthwith.

4. The petitioner challenges the order dated 30th November, 2023 made under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to rectify the assessment order dated 26th December, 2019 made under Section 143(3) of the said Act much after the matter had attained finality consequent upon the issue of Form-V under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (in short ‘DTVSV Act, 2020’).

5. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed his income tax returns for the assessment year 2017-18 on 4th August, 2017. An assessment order was made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on 26th December, 2019. The petitioner appealed the assessment order on 20th January, 2020 while the appeal was pending, the DTVSV Act, 2020 entered force. Therefore, the petitioner, instead of contesting the appeal on merits, opted for the benefits under the DTVSV Act, 2020. The petitioner was issued necessary Form- III indicating the settlement amount. The petitioner in terms of the DTVSV Act, 2020 paid the said amount and was duly issued Form-V on 11th March, 2022. Effect was also given to the settlement recorded in Form-V by order dated 29th September, 2022.

6. The records disclose that in October, 2022 some objections were raised by the revenue audit. Based upon the same on 23rd December, 2022, the A.O. issued a notice under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act seeking to rectify the assessment order dated 26th December, 2019. The petitioner objected to the issue of such notice but on 8th June, 2023 yet another notice was issued under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner once again objected the rectification proceedings but after overruling the petitioner’s objections the impugned order dated 30th November, 2023 was passed. Hence, this petition.

7. The issue raised in this petition stands covered by the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Satish Kumar Dhingra vs. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and Another, (2024) 467 ITR 574; San Garments Manufacturing Private Limited vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 7 and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Del. 9066; and the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Manohar Lal Poddar vs. Union of India, [2025] 176 taxmann.com 344 (Patna).

8. All the above decisions hold that once a certificate of closure in the prescribed form was issued to an assessee under the DTVSV Act, 2020, there was no question of initiating any further proceedings under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act which refers to order passed by the A.O.

9. Therefore, by adopting the reasoning in the above referred three decisions, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30th November, 2023. As a result, the consequential demand notice dated 30th November, 2023 will not survive and the same is also quashed and set aside.

10. The writ petition is allowed.

11. No costs.