TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (9) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 only to obtain the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, which came into force w.e.f. 1-9-1998. According to the department, the revisions filed by the assessee were time barred and as such they were not "pending" in terms of Section 95(i)(c) of the said Scheme.  2.The undisputed facts which lie within a very narrow compass are as follows : In respect of assessment years 1984-85 to 1991-92, the assessee was liable to pay tax under assessment orders passed vide Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also under the assessment orders passed under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.  3.Being aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessee herein, preferred appeals to the Commissioner (A) under Section 246 of the said Act. However, the assessee failed to pre-deposit the self-assessed tax and consequently, the appeals came to be dismissed in the year 1992-93.  4.The Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 introduced a scheme called Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (for short "the Scheme"). The said Scheme was contained in Chapter IV of the Finance Act and consisted of Sections 86 to 98 (both inclusive). The said scheme came into force w.e.f. 1-9-1998 in respect of tax arrear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elay not condoned 1992-93 Appeal 13/15-1-99 Last Week of Jan., 1999 15/22/23-2-99 & 5-3-99 Accepted Delay condoned 1993-94 Appeal 13/15-1-99 Last Week of Jan., 1999 15/22/23-2-99 & 5-3-99 Accepted Delay condoned  6.On the above facts, the department's case before us is that the scheme was enacted to resolve the pending litigation; that the purpose of the scheme was not to create artificial pendency of litigation; that the revisions were not pending on 1-9-1998 when the scheme came into force as the revisions were filed in November and December, 1998 along with applications for condonation of delay and consequently, such revisions did not come within the meaning of the word "pendency" as mentioned in Section 95(i)(c) of the said Scheme. On behalf of the department, it was further pleaded that under the IT Act, there was a difference between an appeal and a revision; that the remedy of filing an appeal is available to an assessee under Section 246 as a matter of right whereas the remedy of filing revision under Section 264 was a discretionary remedy. On facts, it was pleaded that the revisions filed by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Sections 246 were accepted by the Designated Authority (for short "DA") under the Scheme though the applications for condonation of delay were pending decision whereas the DA rejected the declarations filed by the assessee covered by the revisions without waiting for the Commissioner to exercise his authority to condone the delay under the proviso to Section 264 of the I.T. Act. Learned Counsel made the grievance that no reason has been given by the department for rejecting one set of declarations concerning revisions under Section 264 while accepting declarations concerning appeals under Section 246 of the IT Act, though in both the cases, applications for condonation of delay were filed and pending.  9.On the question of law, learned Counsel invited our attention to Section 95(i)(c) and submitted that the scheme was a Code by itself; that the object of the scheme was to recover the taxes locked in the pending litigation and for the purposes of the applicability of the scheme, appeals, references, revisions, writ petitions pertaining to the tax cases were all put at par under Section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that if a revision or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....998 introduced a Scheme called Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. It was a recovery scheme. Under the Scheme, the tax arrear had to be outstanding as on 31-3-1998. Under Section 87(f), "disputed tax" was defined to mean total tax determined and payable under the IT Act/Wealth Tax Act in respect of an assessment year but which remained unpaid as on the date of making of the declaration from which TDS, self-assessed tax, advanced tax paid, if any, had to be deducted under Section 90; the DA had to determine the amount payable and for that purpose, he had to determine the tax arrear as well as the disputed amount as defined under Section 87(f). Thus, the DA had to make an assessment of tax arrears, disputed amount and amount payable for each year of assessment; that appeal was barred against the order under Section 90 (see Section 92); that such determination had to be done within 60 days from the receipt of the declaration and based thereon the DA had to issue a certificate. In other words, till the completion of the aforestated exercise, the appellant could not have paid the amount of tax and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay interest as his liability accrued only after ....