The petitioner made application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act\u00a0 2020 (DTSV Act).\u00a0 The appeal of the petitioner was pending before CIT(A) for the assessment year. The issue involved in the appeal was the Revenue has not given credit for amount paid under\u00a0 Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. While arriving at the amount payable Designated\u00a0 Authority did not give credit to the amount paid under IDS. The petitioner challenged\u00a0 the\u00a0 legality and validity of the refusal by the Revenue to adjust \/ give credit to the amount paid by the petitioner under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Allowing the petition the Court held that, Sub-Section (3) of Section 187 of IDS also categorically provides if the declarant fails to pay the tax, surcharge and penalty in respect of the declaration made under Section 183 on or before the dates specified in sub-Section 1, the declaration filed by him shall be deemed never to have been made under the Scheme. This would mean that the declaration will be non-est. The Revenue cannot retain any amounts paid under a declaration which contemplated under the Scheme is deemed never to have been made. The Scheme does not provide for Revenue to retain the tax so paid in respect of a declaration which is void and non-est. Therefore, the provision of Section 191 cannot have any application to a situation where the tax is paid but the entire amount of tax is not paid and accordingly the retention of the tax by\u00a0 Revenue\u00a0 is illegal.\u00a0 The Revenue was directed to give credit and rectify Form No. 3 issued under DTVSV Act with DTVSV\u00a0 rules.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Referred\u00a0 Hemlatha Gargya v. CIT (2003) 9 SCC 510, Sajan Enterprises Miraj\u00a0 v. CIT, WP No. 4132 of 1999 dt. 13-6-2015 (SC) (UR), Patchala Seethramaiah v. CIT, 1999 SCC Online AP 495\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0(WP No. 844 of 2021 dt. 11.08.21) (AY. 2016-2017)\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n