COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT vs. SHATRUSHAILYA DIGVIJAYSINGH JADEJA

C.A. No.-004411-004411 - 2003Supreme Court01 September 20057 pages
For Petitioner: B. V. BALARAM DASFor Respondent: BHARGAVA V. DESAI
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme aimed to settle all forms of pending litigation. It clarified that even if an appeal or revision was irregular or incompetent, it was still considered 'pending' for the purpose of the scheme, as the validity is for the appellate authority to decide.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals against assessment orders were dismissed for failure to pre-deposit tax. Later, the assessee filed revisions under the Income Tax Act to avail the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The department rejected these declarations, arguing the revisions were time-barred and thus not 'pending' under the scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether revisions filed with applications for condonation of delay, after the original appeals were dismissed, qualify as 'pending' litigation under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The distinction between appeals and revisions and their eligibility under the scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 95(i)(c),Section 246,Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4411 of 2003 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Income Tax,Rajkot. RESPONDENT: Shatrusailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/09/2005 BENCH: B.P. SINGH & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T KAPADIA, J.

The question which arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the department is \026 whether the department was right in rejecting the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme declarations filed by the respondent-assessee on the ground that the assessments had become final in the year 1992-93 (when the assessee’s appeals were dismissed for failure to pre-deposit self-assessed tax) and that the respondent herein had filed revisions under the Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act in November/December, 1998 only to obtain the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, which came into force w.e.f. 1.9.1998. According to the department, the revisions filed by the assessee were time barred and as such they were not "pending" in terms of section 95(i)(c) of the said Scheme.

The undisputed facts which lie within a very narrow compass a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 246

All 130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 246 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →