JAYAPRADHA Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge dt. 24th Aug., 2000 made in WP No. 14234 of 2000 in and by which, the learned Judge declined to interfere with the order of the second respondent herein dt. 23rd Feb., 1999. The sum and substance of the grievance of the appellant was that she was entitled to the benefits of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (in short 'the Scheme') and that her application to derive the benefits under the said Scheme was rejected by the second respondent by the order dt. 23rd Feb., 1999.

(2.) PARAGRAPH 95(i)(a) of the said Scheme reads as under : 95. Scheme not to apply in certain cases. -The provisions of this Scheme shall not apply - (a) in a case where prosecution for concealment has been instituted on or before the date of filing of the declaration under Section 88 under any direct -tax enactment in respect of any assessment year, to any tax arrear in respect of such assessment year under such direct tax enactment or in respect of a person who has been convicted for concealment on or before the date of filing the declaration;(emphasis, italicised in print, supplied) A reading of the above paragraph makes it clear that in respect of a case where prosecution for concealment has been 'instituted' on or before the date of filing of the declaration under Section 88 under any direct -tax enactment in respect of any assessment year, the concerned assessee would not be entitled to the benefits of the said Scheme. It was on that basis, the appellant was issued with the notice dt. 17th Feb., 1999 calling upon her to give a reply in writing on or before 25th Feb., 1999. The appellant came forward with a reply through her chartered accountant on 23rd Feb., 1999 wherein it was merely stated that with reference to the notice dt. 17th Feb., 1999 a writ petition has been admitted in this Court. In such circumstances, the second respondent proceeded to pass the order impugned in the writ petition dt. 23rd Feb., 1999 holding that by virtue of the exclusion clause contained in the Scheme the appellant's application under the Scheme has to be rejected.

(3.) THE only other point raised before the learned Judge was that the refusal of the appellant's offer for compounding the offence for the asst. yr. 1985 -86 was the subject -matter of challenge in the Court. As far as the said contention was concerned, 'the learned Judge found that such challenge by itself would not wipe off the factum of initiation of the prosecution. No other contention was raised before the learned single Judge.