9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,33,470, Rs. 7,36,698 and Rs. 2,15,796, respectively, as per order dated March 29, 1996 (annexure-A). The petitioner appears to have paid in all Rs. 9,52,494 between February 28, 1997, and October 12, 1998. The Recovery Officer, Range-5, Bangalore, informed the petitioner by letter dated October 15, 1998, that a sum of Rs. 3,60,000 is still due in regard to the assessment year 1995-96, made up of Rs. 3,34,771 towards interest under section 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kindly condone the delay in filing of the revision petition inasmuch as the appellants counsel, Sri Shivagangappa, was sick for a prolonged period and subsequently expired on August 7, 1996, and thereby could not attend to the affairs of the petitioners which was plunged in pell mell and confusion and as no other person was aware of the state of affairs and true position." Immediately after filing the said revision petition on January 5, 1999, the petitioner also filed a declaration under section 88 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, on January 6, 1999, claiming the benefit under the Scheme, by alleging that a revision petition filed on January 5, 1999, was pending on the date of declaration. The third respondent dismissed the revision p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, 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 a declaration under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner under the KVS Scheme, by treating it as never to have been made. Re : Point (1) : Section 264 of the Act provides for revision by the Commissioner, either suo motu or on an application by the assessee. Sub-section (3) of section 264 provides that the period of limitation for making an application for revision by the assessee, under section 264 of the Act is one year from the date on which the order was communicated to the assessee or the date on which he otherwise comes to know of it, whichever is earlier. The proviso to sub-section (3) enables the Commissioner to admit an application for revision, after the expiry of that period, if he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudice and independent proof of prejudice is not necessary, further held that where on the admitted facts or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible or permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because courts do not issue futile writs. Applying the said principle, let me examine the facts of this case. The revision was filed on January 5, 1999, against the order dated March 29, 1996 (served on April 25, 1996). The only reason given by the petitioner for seeking condonation of delay is that its counsel died on August 7, 1996. Even assuming that the petitioner's counsel died on August 7, 1996, and that some time is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
