9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 220(2) and Rs. 18,500 towards penalty, Rs. 3,581 as interest thereon and Rs. 3,148 towards costs and charges. The Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 ("the Scheme", for short), was introduced with effect from September 1, 1998, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, for settling tax arrears, locked in litigation, at a substantial discount. Section 88 enables any person to make a declaration to the designated authority in respect of any tax arrear as on March 31, 1998, to avail of the benefit of the discounts/concessions provided under the scheme. Such declaration is required to be made after September 1, 1998, and before December 31, 1998 (later extended to January 31, 1999). Section 95 of the Scheme provides that the Scheme will not apply in certain cases. Section 95(i)(c) makes it clear that the scheme shall not apply in respect of any tax arrear under any direct tax enactment to a case where no appeal or reference or writ petition is admitted and pending before any appellate authority or the High Court or the Supreme Court on the date of filing of the declaration or no application for revision is pending before the Commissioner on the date of filing the declaration. When the Sch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, then the declaration filed under the K. V. S. S. will be treated as never to have been made. In your case condition No. (ii) mentioned above is not satisfied. Hence, the declaration filed is treated as never to have been made. This is for your information." The petitioner is aggrieved. According to the petitioner, the revision filed under section 264 of the Act could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay without hearing him on the question of delay. He, therefore, submits that the rejection of the revision is opposed to the principles of natural justice. In regard to the rejection of the declaration under the scheme, the petitioner contends that the requirement of the scheme is that an appeal or reference or writ petition should be admitted and pending on the date of filing declaration or an application for revision should be pending before the Commissioner on the date of declaration. The petitioner contends that the word "admitted" in section 95 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, applied only to appeals, references and writ petitions ; and in so far as revisions are concerned, mere filing of the revision and pendency thereof is sufficient to become eligible to file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner should apply his mind to find out whether there was sufficient cause for not filing the revision within the prescribed time and exercise his discretion in furtherance of justice. The words "sufficient cause" should be liberally construed, where there is no negligence or want of bona fides on the part of the assessee and the revisional authority will have to condone the delay, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the revision. Though there are divergent views as to whether the revisional authority should give a hearing to the party concerned before rejecting the request for condonation of delay, the prevalent later view is that an oral hearing should be given, when sought by the applicant. In this case, the petitioner did not seek an oral hearing. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have a grievance in regard to the absence of an oral hearing before rejection of the revision on the ground of limitation. Even assuming that an oral hearing ought to have been given, the question that arises is whether the rejection of the revision petition on the ground of delay without giving a hearing to the petitioner, should be interfered with in exercis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner has not made out any ground to interfere with annexure-E, dated January 12, 1999. Re : Point (2) : The contention of the petitioner is that mere pendency of the revision petition on January 6, 1999, was sufficient to enable the petitioner to file a declaration under section 88 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, and there is no need for its admission to hold that the revision petition was pending. The contention of the petitioner that "admission" is not a condition precedent to hold that the revision petition is "pending" for purposes of section 95 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, may be correct in so far as revisions initiated by the Commissioner on his own motion and revision proceedings initiated on an application made by the assessee within the period of limitation of one year provided under sub-section (3) of section 264 are concerned. But, where a revision is filed beyond time, unless the delay is condoned, it cannot be said that the revision is pending. In such a case only when it is admitted by condoning the delay, the revision proceedings can be said to be pending ; and on condonation of delay by the Commissioner and admission, the pendency would relate back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
