P R THANGAVELU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has declined to permit the petitioner to avail of the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Chapter IV of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998) on the ground that though there was a determination of tax in the assessment order prior to March 31, 1998, which was upheld in appeal that determination had been set aside in further appeal by the Tribunal, which had directed the Commissioner to redo the exercise with respect to one of the items and such redetermination had not been done by the Commissioner.

(2.) IT is not possible to accept the argument of counsel for the Revenue that the reason so given constituted a good reason for not extending the benefit of the Scheme. The determination of the tax payable had been made in that assessment order. The fact that the determination was to be re-examined by the Commissioner, as a result of the remand made to him by the Tribunal on an appeal which the Revenue had preferred, does not imply that there was no determination at all. The redetermination which the Commissioner was required to do, as and when made, would certainly be a continuation of the assessment order, substituting the figure as determined by the Commissioner, for the figures determined by the Assessing Officer. The word "determination" referred to in Section 87(m) of the Scheme does not imply that the determination must have become final. On the other hand, the whole object of the scheme is to provide Samadhan instead of continuing the litigation which has to be brought to an end by reason of the assessee availing of the benefit of the scheme. When a determination of the tax had been made and that determination had been set aside in appeal and the process of redetermination was yet to be completed, it cannot be said that there was no determination at all. The redetermination to be made by the Commissioner on remand was a determination which would, for the purpose of the Scheme, be required to be regarded as one made prior to March 31, 1998. The assessee, by his volunteering to benefit from the scheme, had already indicated to the Revenue that even without the redetermination by the Commissioner an amount which he was required to examine was being accepted by the assessee as part of the taxable income.