TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 dismisses challenge to Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, grants refund but denies interest claim.</h1> <h3>M/s. Kapurchand Jethaji & Co. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another</h3> The Court dismissed the Petition challenging orders under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme due to lack of pending disputes and outstanding arrears. The ... Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - declaration under Section 88 of the Scheme seeking to settle the tax arrears pending as on 31 March 1998 for the assessment year 1983-84 to 1986-87 - Held that:- From the reading of the impugned order, the Affidavit in Reply filed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 28 April 1999 and Affidavit in SurRejoinder dated 26 July 1999, it is clear that on the date of filing of second declaration i.e. 29 January 1999, there were no arrears of tax payable by the Petitioner to the Revenue. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 19 February 1999 rejecting the second declaration dated 29 January 1999. Petition is dismissed. As the Petitioner is entitled to the voluntarily deposited amount of ₹ 7,64,630/with the Respondents. This payment/deposit was consequent to what has been recorded in the order dated 30 March 1999. Therefore, on the Petition furnishing evidence of deposit to the Respondent No. 1, the Revenue will refund the amount of ₹ 7,64,630/as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from today. Issues Involved:Challenge to orders dated 14 January 1999 and 19 February 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme; rejection of declaration under the Scheme due to lack of pending disputes and outstanding dues; rejection of second declaration based on no arrears outstanding; dispute over adjustment of tax arrears by refund without notice under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act; rejection of application under the Samadhan Scheme; entitlement to voluntarily deposited amount; refund of deposited amount; interest on deposited amount.Analysis:1. Challenge to Orders under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme:The Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the orders dated 14 January 1999 and 19 February 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The impugned orders were related to the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme introduced as part of the Finance Act, 1998. The first order rejected a declaration due to the absence of pending disputes, while the second order rejected a subsequent declaration citing no arrears outstanding.2. Rejection of Declaration under the Scheme:The Petitioner initially filed a declaration seeking to settle tax arrears pending for specific assessment years. The first declaration was rejected as there were no pending disputes for the mentioned assessment years. Subsequently, a second declaration was filed along with a Reference Application to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, the second declaration was also rejected on the grounds of no arrears outstanding for the mentioned assessment years.3. Dispute over Adjustment of Tax Arrears:The Petitioner contended that the rejection of the second declaration was based on the adjustment of tax arrears by a refund without providing necessary notice under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act. However, the Court found no factual basis for this claim as no supporting documents or orders were presented to substantiate the argument.4. Entitlement to Voluntarily Deposited Amount:Despite the rejection of the Petition, the Court acknowledged that the Petitioner had voluntarily deposited a specific amount as per the Court's direction. The Court directed the Revenue to refund this amount to the Petitioner expeditiously, preferably within six months from the judgment date.5. Refund of Deposited Amount and Interest:The Court clarified that the deposited amount would be refunded to the Petitioner upon furnishing evidence of deposit to the Revenue. However, the request for interest on the deposited amount was rejected, as the deposit was made voluntarily by the Petitioner without a demand from the Revenue.In conclusion, the Petition was dismissed, but the Petitioner was entitled to the refund of the voluntarily deposited amount. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and providing necessary documentation to support claims under the tax dispute resolution scheme.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
