TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alling within section 95(i)(c) of the said Act. The undisputed facts which have emerged from the averments made in the petition and replies for the present purposes are that for the assessment year 1996-97 the assessee claimed certain deductions under section 80-I in respect of which the assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which was decided on March 23, 1997, by which the assessee was allowed a deduction of Rs. 20,80,791. The Assessing Officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, was of the view that the said sum has wrongly been allowed in the assessment year 1994-95 as the assessee has ceased to be eligible for such deduction after assessment year 1993-94 and this is a mistake apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the concerned assessment year under the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is one of the direct taxes enactments to which the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was extended. The second condition relevant for the present purposes is that unless in respect of "tax arrear" an appeal, reference or writ petition was admitted and pending, or a revision was pending on the date of declaration, no provision of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme would be operative in the case of such person. Likewise, the whole or any part of the tax determined on or before March 31, 1998 modified by giving effect to the appellate orders should be unpaid as on the date of declaration. The petitioner filed a revision under section 264 before the Commissioner on January 29, 1999, chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondly, it was contended that it is not that in the present circumstances the revision filed by the assessee cannot be said to be frivolous or raising dispute where none could have been raised. It was pointed out that as per the order under section 154 the amount of deduction of Rs. 20,80,791 under section 80-I was directly the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the deduction was in fact allowed as per his order. Any alteration, even on the basis of mistake apparent on the face of the record, could have been made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) only and the Income-tax Officer or Assessing Officer could not acquire any jurisdiction even by consent of the parties to rectify the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appeal thereafter, by itself, cannot be a ground for denying the consideration of the declaration on merit. It has been urged by learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, that the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme which has been designed to bring an end to the litigation cannot be used for the purpose of creating new litigants where there existed none. The revision in the present case which otherwise was not maintainable has clearly been resorted to by the assessee solely for the purpose of taking the benefit of declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. Undoubtedly, the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme had two purposes ingrained in it and they do not exist independently and separately. One is to recover outstanding arrears which ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under section 154 in respect of a claim to deduction that was the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and which already stood disposed of and bona fide disputing levy of additional tax as a part of the demand created as a result of the order under section 154. The assessee by agreeing to withdraw the deduction under section 80-I certainly cannot be deemed to have agreed to charge of additional demand under section 143(1A). It is also not the case that the revision has not come into existence within the period of limitation, so as to suggest that the assessee has waived his right to challenge that order. The mere fact that the assessee has not filed a revision earlier to the coming into force of the Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intainability or otherwise of the revision before him. He alone could pronounce upon it. When a revision is filed whether it is maintainable or not can only be decided by the revising authority. So also the question about the sustainability of any grounds raised therein rests in the domain of the revising authority. The mere fact that the revising authority also happens to be the designated authority, he cannot merge the two distinct jurisdictions and obligations into one and reflect one order into another. As a designated authority, he has jurisdiction to see only the existence of the conditions which makes the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme operative in the case. If requirement of the scheme is that a revision in respect of tax arrears is pend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
