9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infirmity, to this extent, in the impugned judgment of the High Court. - Appeal (civil) 4411 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2005 - B.P. Singh and S.H. Kapadia, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri K.P. Pathak, ASG, Harish Chander, Sr. Advocate, Tufail A. Khan and B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates with them, for the Appellant. S/Shri M.L. Varma, Sr. Advocate, Bhargava V. Desai, Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Ms. Sheenam Parwanda and Satya Mitra, Advocates with him, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : S.H. Kapadia, J.]. The question which arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the department is - whether the department was right in rejecting the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme declarations filed by the respondent-assessee on the ground that the assessments had become final in the year 1992-93 (when the assessee s appeals were dismissed for failure to pre-deposit self-assessed tax) and that the respondent herein had filed revisions under the Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act in November/December, 1998 only to obtain the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, which came into force w.e.f. 1-9-1998. According to the department, the revisions filed by the assessee were time barred an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 Delay not condoned 1987-88 Revision 26-11-98 to 8-12-1998 28/29-12-98 9-2-1999 Rejected 31-3-2000 Delay not condoned 1988-89 Appeal 13/15-1-99 Last Week of Jan., 1999 15/22/23-2-99 5-3-99 Accepted Delay condoned 1888-89 Revision 26-11-98 to 8-12-1998 28/29-12-98 9-2-1999 Rejected 31-3-2000 Delay not condoned 1989-90 Appeal 13/15-1-99 Last Week of Jan., 1999 15/22/23-2-99 5-3-99 Accepted Delay condoned 1989-90 Revision 26-11-98 to 8-12-1998 28/29-12-98 9-2-1999 Rejected 31-3-2000 Delay not condoned 1990-91 Appeal 13/15-1-99 Last Week of Jan., 1999 15/22/23-2-99 5-3-99 Accepted Delay condoned 1990-91 Revision 26-11-98 to 8-12-1998 28/29-12-98 9-2-1999 Rejected 31-3-2000 Delay not condoned 1991-92 Appeal 13/15-1-99 Last Week of Jan., 1999 15/22/23-2-99 5-3-99 Accepted Delay co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in fact resorted to execution proceedings and a part of the arrears was also realized through the auction sale of the lands of the assessee and, therefore, there was no bona fide pendency of litigation on the date when the assessee filed his declarations under the Scheme. The learned Counsel submitted that there was a difference between an appeal under Section 246 and revisions under Section 264 of the IT Act; that under the proviso to Section 264, the Commissioner was empowered to condone the delay in filing of revision if he was satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the revision within the prescribed time. It was submitted that the revision petition was not pending in terms of Section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme; that the delay in filing the revisions was not condoned and, consequently, the assessee was not eligible to take the benefit of the scheme. In this connection, learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Computwel Systems P. Ltd. v. W. Hasan Another reported in (2003) 260 ITR 86. 8.Per contra, Shri M.L. Varma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that revisions and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rozen assets and recover the tax arrears. 12.In our view, the Scheme was in substance a recovery scheme though it was nomenclatured as a litigation settlement scheme and was not similar to the earlier Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. As stated above, the said Scheme was a complete Code by itself. Its object was to put an end to all pending matters in the form of appeals, reference, revisions and writ petitions under the IT Act/WT Act. Keeping in mind the above object, we have 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 I.T. Act and similar provisions under the W.T. Act. Under the I.T. 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 I.T. Act/Wealth Tax Act and, therefore, the rulings on the scope of appeals and revisions under the I.T. Act or on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
