Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the designated authority was justified in granting relief only to the interest component under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, and whether the earlier adjustment of refund by the assessing authority could be treated as non-existent so as to alter the amount payable under the Scheme.
Analysis: The Scheme under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 distinguishes between disputed tax and tax arrears consisting only of interest or penalty. The assessee's refund for the relevant year had already been adjusted against the tax demand for the earlier assessment year under an order passed under section 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since that adjustment order had not been successfully challenged and had attained finality, the amount remaining payable on the date of declaration was only the interest component. An order that may be irregular or even illegal is not, for that reason alone, void or a nullity, and it cannot be ignored for the purposes of the Scheme unless set aside by the competent forum.
Conclusion: The designated authority correctly applied section 88(a)(iv) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, and the challenge to the adjustment and the relief granted under the Scheme failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A subsisting assessment or adjustment order, unless set aside, must be given effect for computing liability under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, and an irregular or illegal order is not void or a nullity merely because it is alleged to contravene section 245 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.