E.N. MURALI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issues involved in these two original petitions are identical and therefore these original petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE matter relates to the claims of the petitioners under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 declared by the Finance Act No. 2/1998 passed by the Parliament. Under the said scheme assessees intending to avail of the benefits of the said scheme had to file a declaration between 1st Sept., 1998 and 31st Dec, 1998. (It was stated at the Bar that this period was extended for a period of one month, which is not relevant for the purposes of this case). For becoming entitled to the benefits of the scheme, inter alia, the amount in dispute must be in arrears and an appeal or reference or writ petition in respect of the same must have been admitted and pending before any appellate authority or the High Court or the Supreme Court on the date of filing of the declaration.

(3.) THE petitioners rely on the decision of this Court in Lukkose John Thoppial v. CIT : [2000]242ITR1(Ker) and the decision of the Division Bench in appeal against that decision in CIT v. Mrs. Leelamma John Thoppil WA No. 106 of 2000 and Lukkose John Thoppil : [2004]267ITR289(Ker) as also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Mrs. Renuka Datla and Ors. v. CTT and Anr. (2003) 179 CTR (SC) 218 : (2003) 259 ITR 258. On the basis of the ratio of those decisions, the counsel for the petitioners would contend that what is relevant for the purpose of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 is pendency of a revision as on the date of filing declaration and not as on the date of consideration of the declaration for benefit under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme by the authority competent to pass orders under the scheme.