Op/7467/1999 Of N.s.visambharan v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cochin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 7467 of 1999(L) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.S. VISWAMBHARAN, METHANATH HOUSE, SOUTH MARADY,MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.KMV.PANDALAI SMTS.HEMALATHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN (DESIGNATED AUTHORITY UNDER KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME, 1998) 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION CIRCLE I, TRICHUR. TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP 12592 OF 1999 IN OP 7467 OF 1999 DISMISSED 14.3.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 5.1.94 PASSED BY THE FIRSTRESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS F.NO. 46003-PN-3538/AC-INV-1 DATED 24.11.95PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS F.NO. 46003-PN-3538/AC.INV-1 DATED 24.11.95PASSED ;BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 30.12.98 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.2.999 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS APPEARED IN THE ECONOMIC TIMES DATED 25.12.98 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.3.99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORETHE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------------O.P. NO. 7467 OF 1999-------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and senior standing counselappearing for the respondents. Petitioner applied for settlement ofincome tax liability for the year 1982-83 under the Kar VivadSamadhan Scheme of 1998. The proceedings issued vide Ext.P5 showthat liability due for 1982-83 was only interest payable under variousprovisions of the Income tax Act and the petitioner was allowed tosettle the liability by paying 50% in terms of the Scheme. However,petitioner's case is that there was balance tax liability for 1982-83 andif that was reckoned petitioner would have been able to settle theliability by paying 30% of the total disputed income to which balancetax is attributable. However, department's case is that tax liability ofRs. 87,232/- got adjusted from refund due for 1984-85 as is evidentfrom Ext.P3 proceedings. Petitioner's counsel contended thatadjustment under Section 154 is made without notice to the petitionerand therefore adjustment is not binding on the petitioner. However, it is seen that against Ext.P2 demand for 1982-83 wherein demand of taxalone was Rs. 7,27,925/-, petitioner discharged the liability afterreckoning the adjustment made vide Ext.P3. I do not think petitioner isentitled to challenge Ext.P3 proceedings after acting upon the same bymaking payments of balance amount due merely because the Kar VivadSamadhan Scheme would have resulted in better benefit to thepetitioner, had the adjustment not been made by the assessing officer.Petitioner having discharged the balance tax liability after reckoningthe adjustment made vide Ext.P3 cannot request for reversal of theadjustment after three years of the order. O.P. therefore fails and isdismissed. kk (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge