LUKKOSE JOHN THOPPIL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in both these cases is similar and they are disposed of by a common judgment. Petitioners in both these Original Petitions were partners of a firm called M/s Thoppil Finance, which was an assessee under the IT Act. By order dt. 25th Sept., 1997, of the Settlement Commission, the assessing authority, viz., the Asstt. CIT, Investigation Circle I, Division 1, Ernakulam revised the assessment of the petitioners and passed orders under S. 155 of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), redetermining the tax, surcharge and interest payable by the petitioners for the asst. yr. 1992 93. Ext. P1 in both these cases are the assessment orders. The revised assessment included interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. While the petitioner in OP No. 4416/99 was assessed to an interest of Rs. 7,90,095, the petitioner in OP No. 4347/99 was levied an interest of Rs. 3,71,348.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the levy of interest, the petitioners filed revisions under S. 264 of the Act before the respondent. Copies of the revision petitions are produced in both these cases as Ext. P2. Thereafter, the petitioners filed before the respondent, who is the designated authority under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS 1998) applications in the prescribed form with necessary particulars seeking the benefits of the scheme. True copies of the applications are produced as Ext. P3 in both these cases. The petitioners thereafter received notices of hearing on revision petitions on 10th Nov., 1998. The petitioners brought to the notice of the respondent about the filing of the applications under the KVSS and requested to keep the revision petitions pending till decisions are taken on the declarations filed by the petitioners. But by letter, dt. 14th Dec., 1998, the respondent held that the revision petitions filed by the petitioners were not maintainable and cannot be treated as valid revision petitions. Hence, it was held that the declarations filed by the petitioners under the KVSS will not be acted upon. Copies of the letters dt. 14th Dec.,1998, are produced in both these cases as Ext. P5. The petitioners further filed petitions to reconsider Ext. P5. But the same was dismissed by Ext. P6. Ext. P7 is another communication by which it was held that since the revision petitions were not the valid revision petitions on the date of filing of the declarations under the KVSS, the assessments had not been challenged and hence, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits of the KVSS.

(3.) SHRI P.G.K. Wariyar contended that the entire procedure adopted by the respondent was irregular and against the provisions of the scheme. According to him, insofar as a declaration has been made under the scheme, the respondent ought to have considered that and pass appropriate orders. The disposal of the revision petitions before giving a decision on the declarations is illegal. Further it is submitted that the respondent was not correct in holding that the revisions are not maintainable. As a matter of fact, the revisions are maintainable. Even otherwise, the only question that has to be looked into is whether the revisions were pending at the time when the declarations are filed. The authority is not competent to go into the question whether the revision petitions are maintainable or any relief can be granted in the revision petitions. Shri Wariyar cited the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gufic Pharma Ltd. vs. J.C. Arora (1999) 155 CTR (Guj) 82 : (1999) 238 ITR 835 (Guj).