9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (9) TMI 72 - HC - Income TaxIn this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, direction or order of this court quashing and setting aside the orders dated February 9, 1999, passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot, rejecting the petitioner s declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1991-92 and the petitioner has also prayed for a writ to direct the respondent to accept the petitioner s declarations under the said Scheme and to pass necessary orders under the said Scheme as required by law. - We accordingly hold that the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-designated authority to accept the petitioner s declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme which declarations were in respect of the tax arrears , under the Income-tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act determined prior to March 31, 1998, and in respect of which the petitioner s revision applications were pending as on the date of the declarations made before January 31, 1999, which was the extended time limit for making declarations under section 88 of the aforesaid Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) by the respondent. 2. Eligibility criteria for availing benefits under the KVSS. 3. Interpretation of "pendency" of appeals and revision applications. 4. Legislative intent and object of the KVSS. 5. Comparison of treatment of belated appeals and revision applications under the KVSS. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Declarations under the KVSS: The petitioner filed declarations under the KVSS for tax liabilities for assessment years 1984-85 to 1991-92, which were rejected by the respondent on February 9, 1999. The petitioner contended that the rejection was illegal as the revision applications were pending at the time of filing the declarations. 2. Eligibility Criteria for Availing Benefits under the KVSS: The petitioner argued that they met both conditions for eligibility under the KVSS: - Existence of outstanding tax arrears as on March 31, 1998. - Pendency of dispute in respect of the relevant assessment by way of an appeal or revision as on the date of declaration. 3. Interpretation of "Pendency" of Appeals and Revision Applications: The court examined the term "pendency" in the context of the KVSS. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions (Mela Ram and Sons v. CIT, S.B. Jain, ITO v. Mahendra, Raja Kulkarni v. State of Bombay) which interpreted "pending" to mean "factually pending" irrespective of whether the delay in filing was condoned. The court noted that the KVSS used "admitted and pending" for appeals but only "pending" for revisions, indicating that revisions need not be admitted to be considered pending. 4. Legislative Intent and Object of the KVSS: The court considered the legislative intent behind the KVSS, which was to settle pending disputes and expedite the collection of tax arrears. The court rejected the Revenue's argument that the scheme was only for disputes pending as of the scheme's commencement, noting that the primary objective was to collect revenue. 5. Comparison of Treatment of Belated Appeals and Revision Applications under the KVSS: The court observed that the Revenue had accepted the petitioner's declarations in belated appeals but rejected those in belated revision applications. The court found no substantial difference between appeals and revisions, both being part of the appellate jurisdiction. The court held that the Revenue's acceptance of declarations in belated appeals under identical circumstances should apply to revisions as well. Conclusion: The court directed the respondent to accept the petitioner's declarations under the KVSS for the relevant assessment years, as the petitioner met the eligibility criteria. The court also ordered the petitioner to pay interest on the amounts due under the KVSS from March 9, 1999, to the date of payment. The rule was made absolute to this extent, with no order as to costs.
|
