Shah Genmal Sakal Chand & Co. v. Commissioner Income Tax

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersAppeal No. 19181 of 1999 1999 TaxPub(DT) 1332 (Karn-HC) : (1999) 240 ITR 0045 : (2000) 162 CTR 0476 Shah Genmal Sakal Chand & Co. v. Commissioner Income Tax () INCOME TAX --Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme----APPLICABILITYDelayed revision petition under section 263 without disclosing reasons for delay filed by assessee rejected-- Catch Note: For the assessment year 1995-96 assessee filed revision petition under section 263 belatedly without application for condonation of delay --Same dismissed by the Commissioner observing that it was filed only for taking benefit of Kar Vivada Samadhan Scheme 1998 (KVSS)--The word 'pending' in section 95(1)(c) of KVSS, 1998 refers to a petition pending in the eye of law--A delayed petition under section 263 without giving reasons for delay is, therefore, no petition in the eye of law--Order of the Commissioner rejecting assessee's petition, as such, was justified. Held: In accordance with the scheme of Kar Vivada Samadhan Scheme 1998, if the revision petition is pending then the declaration would be filed. For the purpose of maintenance of the revision even a belated revision should have been filed giving reasons for delay in submitting the revision. In any case, when the notice was issued to the petitioner, it was the duty of the petitioner to give reasons so that the revision petition could be maintained. A delayed petition without giving reasons for delay is no petition in the eye of law. The word 'pending' in section 95(1)(c) of the scheme refers to a petition pending in the eye of law. If the revision is filed belatedly with an application for condonation of delay which may ultimately be considered as sufficient cause for condonation of delay by the Commissioner or may not be considered would make the revisional proceedings pending, but if the revision petition is filed belatedly without any application for condonation of delay then it will be considered to have been not filed in accordance with the provisions of section 263. Assessee was, therefore, not entitled to avail of the benefits of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 as revision petition filed belatedly under section 263, without application for condonation of delay was rejected, as the same was filed only to avail of benefits of the scheme. The order, therefore, passed by the Commissioner does not require any interference. Application: Not to current assessment years Decision: In favour of revenue Date of Judgment: 23 June 1999 Assessment Year: 1995-96 Cases Referred: Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 607 (SC) . SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersAppeal No. 19181 of 1999
1999 TaxPub(DT) 1332 (Karn-HC) : (1999) 240 ITR 0045 : (2000) 162 CTR 0476

Shah Genmal Sakal Chand & Co. v. Commissioner Income Tax ()

INCOME TAX

--Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme----APPLICABILITYDelayed revision petition under section 263 without disclosing reasons for delay filed by assessee rejected--

Catch Note:

For the assessment year 1995-96 assessee filed revision petition under section 263 belatedly without application for condonation of delay --Same dismissed by the Commissioner observing that it was filed only for taking benefit of Kar Vivada Samadhan Scheme 1998 (KVSS)--The word 'pending' in section 95(1)(c) of KVSS, 1998 refers to a petition pending in the eye of law--A delayed petition under section 263 without giving reasons for delay is, therefore, no petition in the eye of law--Order of the Commissioner rejecting assessee's petition, as such, was justified.

Held:

In accordance with the scheme of Kar Vivada Samadhan Scheme 1998, if the revision petition is pending then the declaration would be filed. For the purpose of maintenance of the revision even a belated revision should have been filed giving reasons for delay in submitting the revision. In any case, when the notice was issued to the petitioner, it was the duty of the petitioner to give reasons so that the revision petition could be maintained. A delayed petition without giving reasons for delay is no petition in the eye of law. The word 'pending' in section 95(1)(c) of the scheme refers to a petition pending in the eye of law. If the revision is filed belatedly with an application for condonation of delay which may ultimately be considered as sufficient cause for condonation of delay by the Commissioner or may not be considered would make the revisional proceedings pending, but if the revision petition is filed belatedly without any application for condonation of delay then it will be considered to have been not filed in accordance with the provisions of section 263. Assessee was, therefore, not entitled to avail of the benefits of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 as revision petition filed belatedly under section 263, without application for condonation of delay was rejected, as the same was filed only to avail of benefits of the scheme. The order, therefore, passed by the Commissioner does not require any interference.

Application:

Not to current assessment years

Decision:

In favour of revenue

Date of Judgment:

23 June 1999

Assessment Year:

1995-96

Cases Referred:

Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 607 (SC) .