9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Versus Shatrushailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja [2005 (9) TMI 24 - SUPREME Court] - there is nothing to prevent a party from filing an appeal which may ultimately be found to be time barred - the mere fact that it may finally be concluded that the appeal is not maintainable, would not prior to such a finding, lead to a conclusion that no appeal was pending - Designated Authority under the KVS Scheme 1998 is directed to accept the assessee’s declaration filed for AY 1989-90 to 1993-94 under KVS Scheme 1998 – Decided in favour of Assessee. - Writ Petition No. 1691 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 9-7-2014 - M. S. Sanklecha And G. S. Kulkarni,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Gopal, Rahul Hingmire, Mr. Shailesh Poria, Ms. Neha M/s. Hariani Co Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) from the order dated 13 March 1998. of CIT(A). d) On 31 December 1998, the petitioner with a view to settle the dispute filed declarations with the Designated Authority under the KVS Scheme, 1998 for each of the assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94. e) On 19 Feb. 1999 the Designated Authority under the KVS Scheme,1998 rejected the petitioner's declarations for Assessment Years 1989-90 to 1993-94 on the ground that the condition precedent for accepting the declarations was not satisfied viz. there was no pending appeal on the date of the declarations as required under Section 95(i)(c) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998. This on the ground that the appeals filed before the Tribunal against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re any appellate authority or the High Court or the Supreme Court on the date of filing of declaration or no application for revision is pending before the Commissioner on the date of filing declaration. 5) Mr. Gopal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the entire controversy with regard to the meaning of pending appeal in Section 95(i)(c) of the Finance Act (No.2) Act stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shatrushilya Digvijaysingh Jadeja 277 ITR 435 (SC). It is submitted that in view of the above the petition ought to be allowed and the declarations for Assessment Years 1989-90 to1993-94 be directed to be accepted by the Designated Authority under the KVS Scheme 1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the scheme was to put an end to all the pending disputes in the form of appeals, reference, revisions and writ petitions under the Act. The Apex Court held that whether any appeal is validly pending is a question entirely for the Appellate Court before whom the appeal is pending to decide at the hearing of the appeal. However, there is nothing to prevent a party from filing an appeal which may ultimately be found to be time barred. The Apex Court held that the mere fact that it may finally be concluded that the appeal is not maintainable, would not prior to such a finding, lead to a conclusion that no appeal was pending. In the aforesaid view, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue and upheld the order of the High Court that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
