Wp/25383/1999 Of M/S.standard Tyres And Motors, Vijayawada v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vijayawada

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Writ Petition No.25383 of 1999 ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The petitioner is a Partnership Firm and is an assessee underthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). In relation to theassessment year 1987-88, the Income Tax Officer passed an orderfastening certain liability. The matter was carried in appeal, beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada, the 1[st]respondent herein, where partial relief was granted to the petitioner. While the Department filed an appeal before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, feeling aggrieved by the relief granted to thepetitioner, a cross appeal was filed by the petitioner to the extent therelief was denied to it, by the appellate authority. When both the appeals were pending before the Tribunal, theParliament introduced a ‘Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998’. It provided for termination of such proceedings pending at whateverlevel, on payment of the amount stipulated under the relevantprovisions. The petitioner submitted an application in Form-1A, before the1[st] respondent, and paid a sum of Rs.7,535/-. Through a proformaorder, dated 23.02.1999, the 1[st] respondent informed the petitionerthat a sum of Rs.1,59,242/- is payable. The arrears of tax, vis-à-visthe petitioner was shown as Rs.4,54,978/-. The same is challengedin this writ petition. It is urged that when the application is filed with reference tothe liability, which is the subject-matter of an appeal preferred by thepetitioner, there was no basis for the 1[st] respondent in proceedingwith the application as well as the appeal filed by the Department. Counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit are filed bythe Department. According to them, the benefit under the Scheme isalways with reference to a pending proceeding, and if the petitionerintended to terminate just the appeal preferred by it and offered topay the tax, it cannot seek the benefit of termination of the appealpreferred by the Department. Heard Sri Y.Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri J.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner, no doubt, paid the amount referable to thesubject-matter of the appeal preferred by it. However, by the date hefiled the application, the appeal filed by the Department was alsopending. Reference to both the appeals was made in Column I, inthe proforma application. Various aspects urged by the parties in this case, do notdeserve deep consideration, at this stage. The reason is that theapplication of the petitioner stood rejected impliedly, since it did notpay the amount indicated within the stipulated time, nor any interimorder was passed by this Court. The result is that the petitionerbecame ineligible to avail the benefit under the Scheme. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Thereshall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall alsostand disposed of. Date:08.07.2014 GJ ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. _____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.