9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e., for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96, the appellant had submitted a settlement claim and declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, promulgated by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. The appellant made a declaration for settlement of tax payable under section 88 of the Scheme. The declaration was made in respect of arrears of tax, which was disputed. Be it as it may be, when the assessment proceedings on the basis of the settlement and declaration made by the appellant was undertaken, the Assessing Officer added certain additional tax to the declaration made by the appellant and the appellant challenged this additional addition of tax by way of additional tax under section 143(1)(a), by saying that in a settlement scheme undertaken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department in pursuance to the Scheme is valid and no case is made out for interference. 6. That apart, the learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Sanctus Drugs Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1997] 225 ITR 252 (MP), to say that "additional tax" can be imposed. Learned counsel further places reliance on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bidar Sahakari Sakkare Kharkane Niyamat v. Union of India [1999] 237 ITR 445 (Karn), to say that "additional tax" is only a tax and is not a penal provision as canvassed by Shri Mukesh Agrawal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the rival contentions. 8. The onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (supra) and once the Supreme Court has clearly held in its judgment that "additional tax" whenever levied has the imprint of penalty, we cannot ignore the aforesaid judgment and the law laid down by the Supreme Court and accept the contention of Shri Sanjay Lal. 11. Keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (supra), we have no hesitation in allowing this appeal. The order impugned passed by the learned single Bench is quashed and it is held that the imposition of "additional tax" in the facts and circumstances of the case as done is not permissible. The "additional tax" levied under the Scheme be deleted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
