TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98 (for short "the KVSS"), before the designated authority on January 6, 1999. This declaration pertained to the tax arrears of Rs. 4,159 on account of interest under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1985-86. In the column requiring the details of pendency of appeal/revision/reference/writ on the date of declaration it had been stated that the appeal filed on December 30, 1998, was pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (Central), Ludhiana. The designated authority vide order dated January 27, 1999, under section 90(1) of the Act determined a sum of Rs. 2,080 as payable towards full and final settlement of the tax arrears. On the basis of the said order, the petitioner deposited the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority for rejecting the declaration in the impugned order has to be upheld. The declaration is also not valid on another ground as well. Section 95(i)(c) of the Act clearly provides that the scheme was not applicable to a case where no appeal, reference or writ petition is admitted and pending before the appellate authority or the High Court or the Supreme Court. In the present case, the petitioner claims to have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (Central), Ludhiana, on December 30, 1998, which according to it was pending. This is not a case of an appeal having been admitted. From a perusal of section 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is absolutely clear that no appeal against the order levying interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from this writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner in connivance with the officials of the Department has got the disputed demand created in order to fall within the purview of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. It is interesting to note that the demand for the assessment year 1985-86 had been raised on October 28, 1991 and stood paid by October 15, 1992. No demand for interest under section 220(2) was raised thereafter. It is not understood as to how and under what circumstances the Department woke up after six years on December 24, 1998, to determine the interest payable on payments made in the year, 1992. It is admittedly not the case of any party that the demand for interest under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Samadhan Scheme, would defeat and dilute the scheme. Hence, rejection of the petitioner's declaration is proper as no revision or other litigation was 'pending' on January 6, 1999, when the declaration was filed." Thus viewed from any angle we find no infirmity in the order of the designated authority rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioner under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. However, we may clarify that since the declaration has been held to be not failing within the purview of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme the tax paid by the petitioner in accordance with the order under section 90(1) of the Act shall be refunded to the petitioner. The writ petitions are devoid of any merit and are hereby dismissed. No costs. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
