TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an assessee was entitled to the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 when prosecution for concealment had already been instituted before the declaration was filed; (ii) Whether the impugned rejection was vitiated because it was passed before the date fixed for personal hearing.
Issue (i): Whether an assessee was entitled to the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 when prosecution for concealment had already been instituted before the declaration was filed.
Analysis: Paragraph 95(i)(a) of the Scheme excluded cases where prosecution for concealment had been instituted on or before the date of filing the declaration under section 88. The initiation of prosecution was undisputed for the relevant assessment years and the statutory benefit under the Scheme could be claimed only on strict satisfaction of its express conditions. Compounding of some assessment years did not erase the fact of prior initiation of prosecution for the remaining years covered by the declaration.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the Scheme benefit and the rejection of the application was justified.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned rejection was vitiated because it was passed before the date fixed for personal hearing.
Analysis: The objection was not shown to have been raised before the learned single judge, and in any event the assessee had already sent a reply indicating that she was not proceeding with the personal hearing. No procedural prejudice was established.
Conclusion: The order was not vitiated on this ground.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the refusal to extend the benefit of the Scheme was upheld, and costs were imposed for abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory amnesty scheme must be construed strictly, and where its exclusion clause bars cases in which prosecution has already been instituted before the declaration, the assessee cannot invoke equitable considerations to obtain the benefit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
