TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 95 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, contemplates certain categories which are not entitled for the benefits under the Scheme. To the extent it is relevant for the purpose of resolution of the issue raised in the original petition, the provision is quoted below: "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 bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posted on January 7, 1991, and November 9, 1993. Thereafter it was posted to November 23, 1993, and again to December 8, 1993. In the absence of any response from the assessee or his representative the revision petition was dismissed on December 23, 1993. As seen from exhibit P-6 the main reason for dismissal is that there was inordinate delay of more than four years in filing the revision petition and no reasons have been adduced by the assessee to explain the delay. Thereafter, as per exhibit P-7 dated October 24, 1996, after almost three years, the petitioner filed an application for rectification of mistakes under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is submitted in the said application tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner's case should be treated as if his revision was pending. There is also a further submission that the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme being a beneficial piece of legislation, the Scheme should be given a purposive interpretation so as to render the benefit of the Scheme to an assessee like the petitioner. Sri George K. George, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, contends that the Scheme being a self-contained code, it has to be construed strictly. It is also submitted that being a concession extended to an assessee, the Scheme has to undergo strict interpretation and there is no need to stretch it so as to rope in an assessee like the petitioner. It is further contended that the Government had already issued a clarification on Septe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the modalities evolved for charging and recovering the taxes. We cannot expect a scheme or provision intended to extend tax relief to be most comprehensive giving coverage to every possible situation. Logical deductions and analogies do not always hold good." In another decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in Gopal Films v. Deputy CIT [1999] 237 ITR 655, the learned judge in unmistakable terms had made it clear that even when a revision is filed along with a petition to condone the delay, it cannot be said that there was pendency of revision. At page 662, it is held as follows: "The object of the KVS Scheme is to realise the revenue locked up in litigations pending at different levels, by giving incentive to honest taxpaye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. In case there was a revision petition pending on the date of the declaration, the authority had to accept the declaration. The relevant issue is dealt with at page 4 of the said decision as follows: "Even otherwise, I am of the view that for the disposal of the declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme what is necessary is to find out whether there is a revision or appeal pending. Section 95(c) of Chapter IV of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme states that the provisions of this scheme shall not apply 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding". By any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that in the instant case exhibit P1 revision filed by the petitioner is pending. The same was dismissed as early as on December 23, 1993. What is pending is only a petition for rectification under section 154 of the Act. The pendency of such a litigation by way of a petition under section 154 of the Act is not an item included for relief under the self-contained code, the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. True, the Scheme is a beneficial piece of legislation and the petitioner has not taken any steps to create a pendency for obtaining benefit under the Scheme. But what is to be noted is that it is not a litigation settlement scheme pure and simple; it is really a recovery scheme. After all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
