1999 (3) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat, in directing the petitioners to withdraw the applications pending before the Settlement Commission as a condition precedent for availing of the benefits of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVS Scheme). In order to examine and appreciate this question, we would like to highlight a few skeleton factual aspects leading to the rise of this group of two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are income-tax assessees. The income-tax assessment years involved are 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. Respondent No. 1, Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat, before whom the petitioners are entitled to present declarations under the KVS Scheme, made (sic) declarations by both the petit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....amadhan) in respect of the outstanding arrears of the aforesaid assessment years. The applications of the petitioners before respondent No. 2, Settlement Commission, were awaiting the settlement process in terms of section 245D(4) and it was only admitted under section 245D(1) of the Income-tax Act. Nothing has been shown to us which would reinforce the view taken by respondent No. 1. On the contrary, it is an admitted fact that the appeals in relation to the relevant assessment years in the case of both the petitioners are pending and awaiting adjudication. It would be interesting to refer to the provisions of section 95 which provides as to when the Scheme shall not apply in certain cases. Section 95(i) reads as follows : (relevant part i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tions pending before respondent No. 2 have not been processed and have not reached the stage of sub-section (4) of section 245D. Admittedly, the applications of the petitioners are only admitted under section 245D(1). Therefore, mere pendency of applications for settlement before the Settlement Commission could not be said to be a disentitling factor to the petitioners for availing of the benefit of KVS Scheme. After having given an anxious thought to the factual scenario emerging from the record of both the petitions and having analysed and scrutinised the relevant legal proposition enunciated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case where we should exercise our powers under article 226 of the Constitution so as to do ....