9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of declaration under the KVSS could be entertained. Held that- it is not open to designated authority to decide the proceedings under the scheme whether the revision application was barred by limitation or not, whether the delay condoned or not. Thus petition allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, according to the respondent, being January 28, 1999). The petitioner also preferred an application seeking condonation of delay. During the pendency of the revision application and the accompanying application for condonation of delay, the petitioner made a declaration under the KVSS for settling the dispute, both in relation to the tax and the penalty levied. 3. It is in this aforesaid background of facts that the designated authority has, while accepting the declaration in so far as penalty is concerned, rejected the declaration in relation to assessment by observing that in the absence of any proceedings pending, the petitioner was not entitled to seek benefit under the KVSS. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e though she was not eligible for the same by filing a belated petition under section 264 of the Act. That there was no sufficient cause which has prevented the assessee to file application under section 264 within the prescribed period of time. If the assessee had any grievance against the assessment order of the Assessing Officer, she must have filed an appeal or revision petition against the said order in the financial year 1997-98 on or after April 7, 1997, not a day before filing application under the KVSS 1998. The claim of the assessee under the KVSS 1998, was, therefore, rightly disallowed. In support of the submissions made, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of E. J. Thomas v. Asst. CIT [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave to examine section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme, which was different from appeals under section 246, revisions under section 264, appeals under section 260A, etc., of the Income-tax Act and similar provisions under the Wealth-tax Act. Under the Income-tax Act, there is a difference between appeals, revisions and references. However, those differences were obliterated and appeals, revisions and references were put on par under section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme. The object behind section 95(i)(c) in putting on par appeals, references and revisions was to put an end to litigation in various forms and at various stages under the Income-tax Act /Wealth-tax Act and, therefore, the rulings on the scope of appeals and revisions under the Income-tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laration made by the petitioner in relation to disputed amount of tax is required to be accepted. 8. In so far as the judgment of the Kerala High Court is concerned, suffice it to state that, firstly, on the date the Kerala High Court pronounced the judgment, the apex court decision in case of CIT v. Shatrusailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja [2005] 277 ITR 435, was not available ; and, secondly, in the aforesaid circumstances, there is no question of giving preference to the High Court judgment when the Supreme Court judgment on the issue is available. Furthermore, the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Computwel Systems P. Ltd. v. W. Hasan [2003] 260 ITR 86 also cannot be applied to the facts of the case, because in the case before the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
