9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quashing the impugned order dated April 16, 2003. In addition there is a prayer to consider the declaration filed by the assessee under section 88 of the Act on the merits. The facts which are essential to be stated are that the late H.H. Krishnaji Rao Puar filed a petition under section 31(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short "the Wealth-tax Act"), before the Commissioner, Wealth-tax, Bhopal, on November 27, 1995, with a prayer of waiver of interest under section 31(2) for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1963-64 to 1990-91. The aforesaid petition faced rejection vide order dated January 24, 1997. The assessee, the late H.H. Krishnaji Rao Puar, filed an application under section 35(1)(b) on September 27, 1997, before the Commissioner, Wealth-tax, seeking rectification of his earlier order on the ground while rejecting the said petition certain facts were not considered. While the matter was pending the assessee moved an application before the Chief Commissioner, Wealth-tax, Bhopal, on July 29, 1998, for issue of a direction to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax for disposal of the application which was pending before the said authority within a period of six months. As no orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the respondents rejected the same and passed an order on April 14, 2003, not only denying the petitioner's right to take recourse to the provisions of the scheme but also acted against the interests of the Revenue. It is contended that the respondents ought to have considered and weighed that on the one hand the entire levy of interest is under challenge before this court by admission of the writ petition and, therefore, a hyper-technical view should not have been taken recourse to reject the application of the petitioner and levied interest. It is contended that the writ petition was filed on December 14, 1998, prior to the date of declaration but due to procedural impediment which was beyond the control of the petitioner, the writ petition could not be taken up immediately. It has been asseverated that the winter vacation ensued. The plea of prolonged illness of the assessee has been laid emphasis upon, which led to delay in admission of the writ petition. It is the stand of the petitioner that section 95(i)(c) has to be purposively construed and in that backdrop the order dated April 16, 2003, deserves to be set aside. It is averred that if restrictive interpretation is given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in entirety it is necessary to have a scan of the anatomy of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Section 87 of the Scheme deals with various kinds of definitions. Section 88(m) postulates "tax arrear". Section 88 envisages settlement of tax payable. Section 90 provides for time and manner of payment of tax arrear. Section 95 provides the scheme not to apply in certain cases. For our purpose it is relevant to reproduce section 95(i) of the scheme. It reads as under: "95. The provisions of this scheme shall not apply - (i) in respect of tax arrear under any direct tax enactment, - (a) in a case where prosecution for concealment has been instituted on or before the date of filing of the declaration under section 88 under any direct tax enactment in respect of any assessment year, to any tax arrear in respect of such assessment year under such direct tax enactment or in respect of a person who has been convicted for concealment on or before the date of filing the declaration; (b) in a case where an order has been passed by the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D of the Income-tax Act or sub-section (4) of section 22D of the Wealth-tax Act, as the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected on the ground that on the date of filing of the application no appeal was pending before the appellate authority. The learned single judge placing reliance on the Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sat Kartar Trading Co. v. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 859 came to hold that once the appeal is restored the original position stood restored and, therefore, it could be deemed that the appeal was pending for adjudication. The subsequent decision of the appeal does not affect the merits of the settlement. In the present case it is worth noting here the order passed by the learned single judge of this court has been upheld by the Division Bench in a letters patent appeal, but the present case has a different factual scenario to project. The petitioner, as has been indicated earlier, filed a writ petition before this court for issue of a direction to the authority to deal with an application under section 35(1)(b) which was pending before him for more than six months. The writ petition was presented on December 14, 1998. In the writ petition assail was also to the levy of interest. The petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition filed an application under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the language used. In the case at hand, section 95(i)(c) should be read in two compartments. It postulates that a case where no appeal or reference or writ petition is admitted and pending before any appellate authority, and the other one relates to revision where it has been provided no application for revision is pending. To elaborate: as far as pendency of the revision is concerned, that is good enough but as far as appeal or writ is concerned, it should be admitted and pending. We have already referred to the significance of admission and pending. In view of the clear and unambiguous language used by the statute we do not think, it would be appropriate to read anything to it as that would cause violence to the same. Reading down the said provision does not arise. Ordinarily, we would have parted with the case, but it is not to be so. The present case has its own peculiar facet. The petitioner had filed an application under section 31(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, before the Commissioner, Wealth-tax, Bhopal, requesting waiver of interest levied under section 31(2). The petition was rejected and thereafter he filed another application under section 35(1)(b) before the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
