TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2000, for the assessment year 1995-96, whereby the appeal of the respondent/assessee was allowed by the Tribunal and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter referred as "the CIT"), under section 263 of the aforesaid Act, is set aside. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Following are the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal: "1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax lost his jurisdiction after the application of the assessee was accepted under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ("the KVSS") 1998? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the order under section 263 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a year shows that it received US $ 18,95,870 relating to the work done outside India and the amount of US $ 84,20,514 with regard to the work done inside India. The return was filed with the relevant invoices and details. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as "the AO"), on scrutiny of the return and the relevant contract, passed order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act on March 26, 1998, wherein he assessed only 50 per cent. of the total amount of mobilization/demobilization charges received by the respondent/assessee as an amount received in respect of the work outside India and the remaining 50 per cent. was assessed as the amount received for the work inside India. Accordingly, under section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order de novo. The said order was challenged by the respondent/ assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal, vide the impugned order dated September 30, 2005, and set aside nthe order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, under section 263 of the Act. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue. 5. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention here, the relevant provision of law applicable to the case. Sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of section 90 contained in Chapter IV of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, reads as under "(3) Every order passed under sub-section (1), determining the sum payable under this Scheme, shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein and no matter co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce (No. 2) Act, 1998. Admittedly, in the present case, a declaration is made by the respondent/assessee and a settlement order was passed by the designated authority who issue Form No. 2A under the aforesaid Act. The question now is whether, revisional power under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could have been exercised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, or not, in the matter? 7. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned standing counsel for the Revenue/appellant, argued that what is covered under the KVSS is the liability relating to arrears of tax and a settlement order passed under the KVSS does not bar the authorities from issuing notices in respect of any income which is concealed or not disclosed by the assessee. The revisional power c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax to the respondent/assessee pertains to the same proceedings of the KVSS questioning whether the matter settled by the Assessing Officer was covered under the said Scheme, or not? As such, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on that point cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law relating to the jurisdiction the Commissioner of Income-tax to exercise the revisional jurisdiction in the matter of the KVSS stands answered in favour of the Revenue. 11. However, the other grounds mentioned in the impugned order passed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on which the appeal o....