Taxpayer settlement under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme bars subsequent scrutiny under s.143(3); s.264 and later s.143 orders invalid

The HC held that once a taxpayer settles a dispute under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) in respect of matters covered u/s 143(1)(a), revenue authorities cannot pursue further scrutiny u/s 143(3) on the same assessment. Relying on Supreme Court precedent and a subsequent Bombay HC reiteration, the court found the revisional order under s.264 and the later assessment order under s.143 to be unsustainable.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether, upon declaration, determination and payment under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) and issuance of the certificate by the Designated Authority under Section 90 of the KVSS, the Assessing Officer retains jurisdiction to continue or reopen scrutiny proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the same assessment.

2. Whether an order of assessment passed under Section 143(3) after settlement under the KVSS and after issuance of Form 3/Section 90 certificate is sustainable, except where false material particulars have been furnished in the declaration under the KVSS.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Jurisdiction to continue or reopen scrutiny proceedings under Section 143(3) after settlement under KVSS.

Legal framework: KVSS provides for declaration (Section 88), determination by the Designated Authority and certificate (Section 90), and immunity consequences (Section 91). Section 94 preserves that KVSS benefits apply only to matters in respect of which the declaration is made, except as otherwise stated. Under the Income-tax Act, notices under Section 143(2)/(3) permit scrutiny and assessment proceedings.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on authoritative higher court pronouncements (referred to in the judgment as a decision of the Supreme Court and a subsequent Division Bench pronouncement of a High Court) that interpreted KVSS as creating a conclusive determination in respect of tax arrears covered by the Scheme and limiting post-settlement actions by revenue authorities.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Designated Authority's order under Section 90 is characterized as a considered, conclusive determination of the amount payable for full and final settlement of tax arrears covered by the declaration. Once the amount is determined and paid and a certificate is issued, immunity under Section 91 becomes effective. The Court reasoned that permitting continuation or reopening of scrutiny under Section 143(3) in respect of the same matters would defeat the Scheme's object of cutting short litigation and obtaining finality. The Court read the Scheme and the statutory provisions as intending to foreclose revisiting assessments covered by the KVSS, subject only to specified exceptions in the Scheme itself.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The KVSS determination and certificate produce finality and remove jurisdiction from the Assessing Officer to continue or reopen scrutiny/assessment proceedings under Section 143 in respect of tax arrears covered by the Scheme, except as provided by the Scheme (i.e., where material particulars in the declaration are found false). Any contrary continuation or reassessment is not maintainable. Observational/confirmatory remarks regarding the Scheme's object (reducing litigation) are obiter to the extent they expand policy discussion but support the ratio.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that after settlement under KVSS (determination under Section 90 and issuance of certificate), respondent authorities are not permitted to continue with or reopen scrutiny proceedings under Section 143(3) in respect of the same assessment, except where the proviso to Section 90(1)(2) (false material particulars) applies.

Issue 2: Validity of an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) subsequent to KVSS settlement and whether Section 90 proviso (false particulars) is a condition precedent for reopening.

Legal framework: Section 90 of the KVSS requires determination by the Designated Authority and issuance of certificate within a stipulated period; the Scheme recognizes that payment of the determined sum constitutes full and final settlement in respect of the declared tax arrear. The Scheme contains an express exception where material particulars are found false, enabling revocation/alternate action.

Precedent treatment: The Court accepted higher court authority holding that the Scheme's Section 90 order is conclusive and that the Assessing Officer cannot reopen once the certificate is issued and payment made, unless the case falls under the proviso relating to false particulars.

Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned assessment under Section 143(3), passed after the Designated Authority's Section 90 order and after issuance of Form 3, was examined and held to be inconsistent with the Scheme's conclusive intent. The Court emphasized that absent a finding of falsity of material particulars in the KVSS declaration (as contemplated by the Scheme), there was no jurisdictional basis for the Assessing Officer to proceed to assessment or for the Revisional Authority to sustain such an assessment.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An assessment order passed under Section 143(3) after a KVSS Section 90 determination and certificate is unsustainable and liable to be quashed unless the reopening is justified by the Scheme's explicit proviso (false material particulars). Observations about related High Court decisions reaffirming the principle are confirmatory and supportive.

Conclusions: The Court set aside/quashed the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) after the KVSS settlement and the Revisional Authority's order sustaining that assessment, holding both unsustainable in law on the basis that the KVSS determination and certificate preclude further assessment proceedings except where the declaration is shown to contain false material particulars as per the Scheme.

Cross-References and Ancillary Observations

1. The Court cross-referenced the Scheme's provisions (Sections 88, 90, 91 and Section 94's clarification) to establish the legislative scheme of finality and limited exceptions.

2. The Court noted that the object of the KVSS is to curtail tax litigation and encourage settlement by providing finality upon payment pursuant to Section 90, which informs the interpretation limiting revenue action post-settlement.

3. Remedy: Where a matter has been validly settled under KVSS and payment and certificate have been issued, the appropriate remedy is to quash subsequent assessment/revisional orders inconsistent with that settlement; costs need not follow.

---