9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal ought to have been dismissed as withdrawn. As decided in Nishit Construction Company P. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2006 (4) TMI 114 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT) & All India Federation of Tax Practitioners Vs. Union of India [1998 (11) TMI 113 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein held that if a declaration has been made under KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME, 1998 then the appeals preferred by the assessee as also the department in respect of the same assessment year cannot be proceeded with. Thus the Tribunal has erred in law in remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for decision afresh as the declaration under KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME, 1998 has been accepted by the designated authority. - INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 168 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 3- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho vide order dated 22nd March, 1994 had partly allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue also preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. We may mention here that the order dated 26th February, 1993 was passed by the Assessing Authority in remand assessment proceedings. It appears that in the meantime the appellant had made an application under KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME, 1998 in respect of the assessment year in question and had deposited a sum of Rs.45,231 as tax determined by the designated authority. The declaration was accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 6th April, 1999. When the appeal of the appellant came up for hearing before the Tribunal the Tribunal vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners Vs. Union of India, 1999 UPTC 109, wherein it has been held that if a declaration has been made under KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME, 1998 then the appeals preferred by the assessee as also the department in respect of the same assessment year cannot be proceeded with. The learned counsel appearing for the Department could not cite any decision which has taken a contrary view nor he could persuade us to take a different view than what has been taken by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Delhi. We are in full agreement with the view taken by those High Courts. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erred in law in reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
