Partnership Firm V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada

WP/25383/1999

AI Insights

The case involves a partnership firm that was an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, which faced a tax liability for the assessment year 1987-88. After partial relief in the first appeal, both the firm and the Department filed appeals with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of these appeals, the 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998' was introduced, allowing for the termination of disputes on payment of a stipulated amount. The firm applied under this scheme but failed to pay the required amount within the stipulated time, leading to the dismissal of their writ petition as infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 675974 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: Y RATNAKAR
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Year 1987-88; Income Tax; Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme; Partnership firm; Tax liability; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Writ Petition No.25383 of 1999 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The petitioner is a Partnership Firm and is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). In relation to the assessment year 1987-88, the Income Tax Officer passed an order fastening certain liability. The matter was carried in appeal, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada, the 1st respondent herein, where partial relief was granted to the petitioner. While the Department filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, feeling aggrieved by the relief granted to the petitioner, a cross appeal was filed by the petitioner to the extent the relief was denied to it, by the appellate authority. When both the appeals were pending before the Tribunal, the Parliament introduced a ‘Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998’. It provided for termination of such proceedings pending at whatever level, on payment of the amount stipulated under the relevant provisions. The petitioner submitted an application in Form-1A, before the 1st respondent, and paid a sum of Rs.7,535/-. Through a proforma order, dated 23.02.1999, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs.1,59,242/- is payable. The arrears of tax, vis-à-vis the petitioner was shown as Rs.4,54,978/-. The same is challenged in this writ petition. It is urged that when the application is filed with reference to the liability, which is the subject-matter of an appeal preferred by the petitioner, there was no basis for the 1st respondent in proceeding with the application as well as the appeal filed by the Department. Counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit are filed by the Department. According to them, the benefit under the Scheme is always with reference to a pending proceeding, and if the petitioner intended to terminate just the appeal preferred by it and offered to pay the tax, it cannot seek the benefit of termination of the appeal preferred by the Department. Heard Sri Y.Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri J.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner, no doubt, paid the amount referable to the subject-matter of the appeal preferred by it. However, by the date he filed the application, the appeal filed by the Department was also pending. Reference to both the appeals was made in Column I, in the proforma application. Various aspects urged by the parties in this case, do not deserve deep consideration, at this stage. The reason is that the application of the petitioner stood rejected impliedly, since it did not pay the amount indicated within the stipulated time, nor any interim order was passed by this Court. The result is that the petitioner became ineligible to avail the benefit under the Scheme. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. _____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J. Date:08.07.2014 GJ "