TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome with regard to the aforesaid assessment years and the following chart will be clear with regard to the same: Assessment Income related Income determined Difference year to KVSS by Settlement Commission 1988-89 1,21,420 1,21,420 Nil 1989-90 1,60,987 2,08,010 47,023 1992-93 2,39,060 2,39,060 Nil 1993-94 1,09,790 1,09,790 Nil Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 67....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above three petitions, the designated authority has issued the final certificate under section 90(2) read with section 91 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, as full and final settlement of arrears. In all the three petitions, the Settlement Commission had construed the provisions of section 245D to mean that as the application was pending before the said Settlement Commission, the Settlement Commission was not empowered to allow the petitioner to withdraw the same and the Settlement Commission was also entitled to proceed with the same and decide and accordingly had decided the tax liability. Shri Jasani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that in all the above three matters brought to our notice under the entire Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 the whole objective is that once the designated authority passes a final order under section 90(2), if one were to read section 90(4), it would be apparent that all the proceedings by way of appeal, reference, etc., which were pending, all shall be deemed to be withdrawn, so as to give effect to the final certificate issued under section 90(2) by the designated auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Income-tax Act, the provisions of the aforesaid Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, shall not apply. There is no dispute that in all the three cases, no final order was passed under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act by the Settlement Commission at the relevant time. Shri Jasani, also brought to our notice two judgments of the Supreme Court interpreting the scope of the said section 90 of the Kar Vivid Samadhan Scheme and the effect of an order being passed under section 90. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sushila Rani v. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 775, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: "An examination of the scheme of sections 89, 90 and 91 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme would reveal that every person entitled to make a declaration under the said scheme was obliged to submit the declaration on or before January 31, 1999; that a period of 60 days has been stipulated under section 90(1) for the designated authority under the scheme to determine the amount payable by the declarant and the certificate to this effect under section 90(1) has to be granted by the designated authority after determination towards full and final settlement of the tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 90 is a considered order which is intended to be conclusive in respect of tax arrears and sums payable after such determination towards full and final settlement of tax arrears. Once the declarant makes payment of the amount so determined under section 90, the immunity under section 91 springs into effect. We are also of the view that upon such declaration being made, tax arrears being determined, paid and certificate issued under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, there is no jurisdiction for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment by a notice under section 143 of the Act except where the case falls under the proviso (2) of sub-section (1) of section 90 as it is found that any material particular furnished in the declaration is found to be false. In the present case, it is not the case of the Revenue that any material particular furnished by the appellant-assessee in the declaration was found to be false. Consequently, the Assessing Officer could not have reopened the assessment by a notice under section 143 of the Act." Shri Jasani, therefore, contended that the Settlement Commission totally erred in holding that the application before it was pending and as such, ....