TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : MRS. RUMA PAL. and B. N. SRIKRISHNA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by MRS. RUMA PAL J.-- The grievance of the appellants in these three appeals arises out of an order passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the appellants' declarations which the appellants had filed under the "Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998" (referred to briefly as "the Scheme"). The scheme was introduced by and is contained in Chapter IV of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 (referred to hereafter as "the Act"). It was in force between September 1, 1998, and January 31, 1999. Briefly, the scheme permits the settlement of "tax arrears" as defined in section 87(m) of the Act. The relevant extract of the definition reads: "tax arrears" means,-- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere any person makes, on or after the 1st day of September, 1998, but on or before the 31st day of December, 1998, a declaration to the designated authority in accordance with the provisions of section 89 in respect of tax arrear, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment or any other provision of any law for the time being in force, the amount payable under this Scheme by the declarant shall be determined at the rates specified hereunder." Section 89 provides that: "89. Particulars to be furnished in declaration.--A declaration under section 88 shall be made to the designated authority and shall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be prescribed." Section 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (5) an appeal or reference or writ petition before the authorities or court in respect of items (1), (2) and (4) on the date of the filing of the declaration is pending ; (section 95(i)(c)). As the appellants' declarations were rejected by respondent No. 1, on identical grounds on an interpretation of the same provisions of the Scheme, it is sufficient to consider the facts relating to Civil Appeal No. 4731 of 2000 (Dr. (Mrs.) Renuka Datla v. CIT, Karnataka (Central)) to resolve the issues raised. The assessment year in this appeal is 1992-93. By an order dated March 31, 1995, the appellant was assessed to tax under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner. The total tax with interest determined was Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. The appellant filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in which the appellant not only impugned the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the extent that it confirmed the additions under items (iii) and (vii) but also the direction to the Assessing Officer regarding the quantum of modification under item (i) and re-determination in respect of items (vi), (vii) and (ix). In addition, the appellant challenged the confirmation of the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. Pursuant to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Assessing Officer by order dated November 17, 1997, modified the assessment order for the assessment year 1992-93 in respect of item (i) and deducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 271(1)(c) were initiated separately. The demand raised by the Assessing Officer was not met by the appellants. The appellant filed her declaration under section 88 of the Act in respect of the assessment year 1992-93 on January 28, 1999. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who was the designated authority under the scheme rejected the declaration filed by the appellant by his order dated February 26, 1999, Three reasons were given for the rejection: "1. There does not exist any arrears on March 31, 1998, as seen from the facts stated above. 2. The appeal said to be pending is on levy of interest, which has been waived. Hence, there is no dispute. 3. The arrear that is sought to be settled relates to the current demand rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 87(m). The section itself makes no such distinction between a conceded demand and any other for the purposes of the Scheme. Section 87(f) appears to fortify the position by the definition of "disputed tax" as "the total tax determined and payable in respect of an assessment year under any direct tax enactment but which remains unpaid as on the date of making the declaration under section 88". The word "determined" is not qualified by the process by which the determination is made. However, not all "tax arrears" under section 87(m) are entitled to the benefit of the Scheme. If no appeal, etc., is pending in respect of the tax arrears, the benefit of the Scheme is not available under section 95(i)(c). If an appeal, etc., is pending, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
