2004 (1) TMI 63 - HC - Income Tax

Protective assessment - declaration filed by the assessee - Protective assessment and protective demand are factually not found in the Act. Any demand in terms of protective demand cannot be legally enforceable like a regular assessment demand - Regular assessment also has been done - Thus, the authorities are right in holding against the petitioner by way of rejection of the petition - authority was right in rejecting the declaration filed by the asssessee in respect of protective assessment

Issues:
1. Rejection of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme application for assessment year 1995-96.
2. Challenge against rejection of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme application.
3. Interpretation of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme provisions.
4. Consideration of protective assessment and protective demand.
5. Comparison with relevant case laws.
6. Determination of disputed tax and tax arrears under the scheme.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the rejection of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme application for the assessment year 1995-96. The first petitioner, as the legal representative of the deceased Sri A.S. Sengoda Gounder, filed an appeal challenging the rejection. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also passed an order against the appeal, leading to a pending appeal before the Tribunal. The rejection of the application under the scheme prompted the first petitioner to file a writ petition.

2. The second petitioner, who is the son-in-law of the deceased, also faced a similar situation where the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme application was rejected. The rejection led to a challenge against the decision, aligning with the first petitioner's situation. The proceedings for the second petitioner mirrored those of the first petitioner, highlighting a consistent issue regarding the rejection of the scheme application.

3. The interpretation of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme provisions played a crucial role in the judgment. The contention between the petitioner's counsel and the standing counsel focused on the scheme's eligibility criteria, particularly emphasizing the presence of factual tax arrears that could be legally demanded under the Income Tax Act for the scheme's consideration. The rejection of the applications was based on the absence of tax arrears pending on the date of application, as outlined in the scheme's definitions.

4. The argument regarding protective assessment and protective demand surfaced during the proceedings. The petitioner's counsel asserted the validity of protective assessment and demand, but the court emphasized that such concepts were not legally enforceable like regular assessments. The court upheld the authorities' decision to reject the applications based on the existence of regular assessments and the absence of legally enforceable tax arrears.

5. The judgment extensively compared the present case with relevant case laws, such as CIT v. Khalid Mehdi and Khandubhai Vasanji Desai v. Deputy CIT. The court distinguished these cases from the current scenario, particularly highlighting the differences in the assessments and tax arrears considerations, reinforcing the decision to reject the petitions based on the scheme's provisions and legal interpretations.

6. The determination of disputed tax and tax arrears under the scheme was a pivotal aspect of the judgment. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Lalji Haridas v. ITO, emphasizing that protective assessments are not recognized in law and that tax liability determinations should align with appropriate proceedings. The court's decision to reject the petitions was grounded in the scheme's definitions, relevant case laws, and the Supreme Court's guidance on tax assessments and liabilities.

Overall, the judgment delved into the intricacies of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, protective assessments, tax arrears considerations, and legal interpretations to arrive at the decision to reject the petitions challenging the rejection of the scheme applications.

← Previous Next →