TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders consideration of petitioner's declaration under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998</h1> The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection order, and directed the respondents to consider the declaration filed by the petitioner on ... - Issues:- Appeal restoration and its effect on the declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme.Analysis:The petitioner, a newspaper company, filed a return of income in 1990, which was assessed by the Assessing Officer in 1993 with additions to the disclosed income. Subsequent appeals to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were made, with the latter being dismissed in default of appearance but later restored. During this time, the 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998' was introduced by the Union of India to settle tax dues in litigation quickly and voluntarily. The petitioner filed a declaration under this scheme on January 28, 1999, offering to pay the disputed tax amount. The respondents rejected the declaration, stating that no appeal was pending on the date of filing, a precondition for admission under the scheme.The petitioner argued that on restoration of the appeal, it should revert back to the original date, making the declaration valid. Citing a precedent from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petitioner contended that restoration of the appeal nullifies the earlier dismissal in default of appearance, and the declaration should be considered under the scheme. The respondents maintained that the rejection of the declaration was proper as the appeal was not restored at the time of filing.The court held that the rejection of the declaration was unjust as the appeal was pending on the date of the rejection order. The court emphasized that the term 'restoration' implies a return to the original position, making the rejection of the petitioner's application erroneous. Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection order, and directed the respondents to consider the declaration filed by the petitioner on January 28, 1999, under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
