TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Income-tax for the period from April 1, 1986 to October 15, 1996. The above order of assessment was passed on October 29, 1997. It is the admitted position that the petitioner filed a revision petition against the above order on January 29, 1999 along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. A medical certificate was also produced along with the petition for condonation of delay. According to the petitioner, he could not file a revision petition within time since he had undergone a surgery for retinal detachment. Shortly after filing the revision petition, the petitioner had filed a declaration seeking the benefit of the scheme as provided under section 89 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. However, the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ptember 1, 1998 to January 31,1999. The scheme envisaged a simplified procedure for liquidation of tax arrears. The assessee had to furnish a declaration to the designated authority in accordance with the provisions of section 89 in respect of tax arrears "notwithstanding anything contained in any direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment or any other provision of any law for the time being in force". It was further provided that the designated authority shall determine the tax payable by the declarant/assessee at the rates specified under the scheme. It is not necessary to refer to the various provisions of the scheme at length in order to deal with the controversy which has cropped up in this case. But a reference to the relevant po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Is this contention tenable? The thrust of the argument of learned counsel is that the declarant need only to satisfy the designated authority that a revision petition was pending on the date when the declaration under the scheme was filed. It is contended by learned counsel that section 95(i)(c) does not postulate that the revision petition ought to have been admitted and pending on the date of filing of the declaration. Learned counsel points out that in clause (c) the statutory stipulation is only that a revision petition must be pending before the authority on the date of filing of the declaration, whereas in the case of appeal, reference or writ petition, such a proceeding must have been admitted and pending before any appellate author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ltaneously on the eve of the closure of the scheme will not disentitle him from getting the benefit of the scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Shatrushailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja v. CIT [2003] 259 ITR 149 in support of his contention that the declaration could not have been rejected on the ground that the delay in filing the revision petition was not condoned and therefore no revision was pending. It is true that the Gujarat High Court in the above case has held that the expression pending in section 95(i)(c) in relation to revisions means "factually pending". The mere fact that the revision petition was not filed within the period of limitation, did not mean that it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on for hearing. The assessee alerted the revisional authority about the pendency of the declaration under the scheme and requested that the hearing of the revision petition may be kept in abeyance till a decision was taken on the declaration. But the revisional authority held that the revision petition was not maintainable since the challenge in the revision pertained only to levy of interest. Consequently, the declaration filed by the assessee under the scheme was also rejected. A learned single judge of this court allowed the original petition filed by the assessee and held that what was relevant for disposal of the declaration under the scheme was only that a revision, appeal or writ petition was pending at the time when the declaration ....