9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 92-93 was completed and there were amounts remaining due and payable to the department as per the assessment completed for the said year. The petitioner in the subsequent years was also assessed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'Act') and in the year 1996-97 an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) dated 26.03.1997 was allegedly sent to the petitioner. The petitioner disputes the receipt of the same. The above mentioned intimation under Section 143(1)(a), according to the department, clearly spoke of a refund for the year 1996-97 coming to Rs.1,50,000/- which together with interest under Section 244A was shown as adjusted towards the interest arrears of 1992-93. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the authority und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P1 order would clearly show that the intimation under Section 143(1) (a) for the year 1996-97 was not received by the petitioner and that the certificate issued under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme did not reflect the deduction of the adjustment of the refund for the year 1996-97. The learned Standing Counsel for the department however would contend that Ext.P1 would only show that an acknowledgment of the receipt of the notice under Section 143 (1)(a) was not in the files. The despatch of the notice was evidenced from the file and the fact that the petitioner had been claiming the deduction for Rs. 1,66,500/-, even going by Ext.P2 would show that the petitioner was aware of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction regarding the report made by the Assessing Officer. 7. The computation of the tax payable on settlement under the Scheme of 1998 is as per Clause 8 of the said scheme. The actual computation of the amounts under the Scheme as per Sub Clause(a) of Clause 88 reads as under: "where the tax arrear is payable under the Income Tax Act 1961(43 of 1961),- (i) in the case of a declarant being a company or a firm at the rate of 35% of the disputed Income (ii) in the case of a declarant, being a person other than a company or a firm, at the rate of 30% of the disputed income." Sub Clause ii as extracted above would be applicable to the petitioner herein being an individual assessee. The settlement of tax payable and the amounts certified for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in any manner. The adjustment of the refund amounts together with interest, did not at all prejudice the petitioner under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. It is also pertinent that the revision itself was delayed. Ofcourse the petitioner contends that the same was due to the appeal filed against the letter of rejection. That alone in my opinion cannot enable the petitioner to file a delayed revision. Be that as it may since this Court has found that there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner and that there is absolutely no illegal enrichment by the department; this Court is of the opinion that no revision can be ordered at this stage and the petitioner's claims for the same is devoid of merit. The writ petition hence is di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
