Allowing the petition the Court held that   the Department was bound by the circulars or instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and had to comply with them. It was bound by the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes issuing clarification. According to the Central Board of Direct Taxes’ circulars pendency of arbitration proceedings and miscellaneous applications in certain cases, as on cutoff date would meet the requirement of section 2(1)(j) of the 2020 Act, even though no appeal, writ petition or special leave petition was pending in any appellate forum in terms of this section. Even though a review petition’s scope was limited and statutorily different from an appeal, the jurisdiction of the court extended to the power to modify, review or recall its own order. Therefore, the special leave petition could not be said to have attained finality when a review petition was still pending on the specified date. The Department itself had mellowed down the strict interpretation of section 2(1)(j) of the 2020 Act by including pending arbitration proceedings and miscellaneous applications under the scheme. There was no reason why pendency of a review petition after dismissal of the special leave petition should not be similarly covered. A review petition also partook the character of pending proceedings, and, therefore, the assessee should not have been treated as ineligible for claiming benefit under the 2020 Act. Consequently, the order rejecting the declaration was set aside, and the Department was directed to accept the revised declaration and process it in accordance with the 2020 Act. Though the review petition had since been dismissed by the Supreme Court, the right of the assessee as on the cutoff date, when the review petition was still pending, had to be considered. As on the cutoff date, the possibility of reaching a different conclusion could not have been ruled out. The reasons given by the Department in rejecting the declaration filed by the assessee on January 28, 2021, could not be sustained since they were not in consonance with the scheme of the 2020 Act and did not conform to the intent and purpose of the legislation. The Department was directed to accept the revised declaration form filed by the assessee and process it in accordance with the 2020 Act and pass requisite orders in terms thereof. Court also held that  a beneficial legislation should  be given purposive interpretation to fulfil its objectives. (AY. 2009-10)