9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o whether there was tax liability as on March 31, 1998, I direct the first respondent to verify records and to settle actual liability under the scheme. There will be direction to the first respondent to revise the demand for 1993-94 in accordance with the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, granting eligible benefit to the petitioner, adjust reduction, if any, granted against demand for other years and issue fresh demand notice for all the years - - - - - Dated:- 6-10-2005 - Judge(s) : C. N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR. JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair J.-The petitioner is challenging, exhibit P11(a) issued by the first respondent demanding differential amount payable by the petitioner under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, for the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 1993-94 because the demand raised therein for all the three years is only towards interest. Neither in exhibit P4 declaration furnished by the petitioner nor in exhibit P7 order issued by the first respondent under the scheme, there is any statement as to the nature of interest offered for settlement and accepted by the Department. However, it is seen from the revised proceeding namely, exhibit P11(a) that the demand originally settled was interest payable under section 234B and section 234C of the Income-tax Act for all the years and for the year 1993-94 demand settled included interest payable under section 234A also. The petitioner has no dispute that besides the liability for interest payable under sections 234B and 234C for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed any objection against exhibit P7 but remitted the amount in terms of the demand. From the figures shown in exhibits P4, P7 and P11(a), it is clear that neither the declaration furnished by the petitioner nor the first order issued by the first respondent accepting settlement therein is consistent with actual liability disclosed by records inasmuch as complete interest liability under section 220(2) due up to March 31, 1998, was not reckoned by the petitioner in the declaration and the Department in their order. The actual position with regard to tax liability for the year 1993-94 is not known even as of today. Even though counsel for the petitioner based on the above decision of the Supreme Court submitted that no order under the scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court in the very same decision cited above, I uphold the demand of interest under section 220(2) under exhibit P11(a) for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92. So far as 1993-94 is concerned, in view of the controversy as to whether there was tax liability as on March 31, 1998, I direct the first respondent to verify records and to settle actual liability under the scheme. There will be direction to the first respondent to revise the demand for 1993-94 in accordance with the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, granting eligible benefit to the petitioner, adjust reduction, if any, granted against demand for other years and issue fresh demand notice for all the years. The revision will be made within a period of six weeks from the date of product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
