Commissioner of Income Tax vs Union of India (UOI) and Others Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

S.K. Keshote, J.—These IT references between the parties are in respect of asst. yr. 1988-89 arising out of the IT Ref. No. 1349/Jp/1991 and 1387/Jp/1994.

On the request of the assessee and the Revenue, by common order, the Tribunal made reference to as many as six questions for the opinion of the Court. The assessee in the IT references, filed an application and prayed that the references in the facts and substance enumerated therein have become infructuous. Prayer is made in the application for disposal of these references in terms of "Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS)."

Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that it is not in dispute that the Government of India introduced "Kar Vivad Samadan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS)", by the Finance (2) Act, 1998. It is also not in dispute that the assessee in accordance with this Scheme made a declaration on 24th Dec., 1998, u/s 89 of the Finance (2) Act, 1998, to the designated authority, CIT, Jaipur. It is also not in dispute that the designated authority issued a certificate of intimation u/s 90(1) of the Finance (2) Act, 1998, determining the amount payable at Rs. 71,923 for the said asst. yr. 1988-89, learned counsel for the Revenue also does not dispute that the assessee has deposited this amount of Rs. 71,923.

Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the assessee also is in agreement that the assessee having fully complied with all the terms and conditions put by the CIT, Jaipur/designated authority, was issued a certificate for full and final settlement of tax arrears u/s 90(2) r/w Section 91 of the Finance (2) Act, 1998.

In view of this undisputed factual position, we are satisfied that on account of availing of the ''benefit of the Scheme aforestated, the questions, referred by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the opinion of the Court have become of academic interest only. The Courts are already heavy burdened with the work and neither it is advisable nor desirable for it, to consume its valuable and precious judicial time to decide the questions only of academic interest. Thus, we are in agreement with the counsel for the assessee that there is no need to answer any of the questions referred by the Tribunal to this Court for its opinion as in view of the subsequent development which has been taken place; they have become of academic interest only. We are also in agreement with the learned counsel for the assessee that if these questions referred to this Court are not answered, it cannot be taken that the opinion of the Court is in favour of the assessee or the Revenue. As and when, in future, any such question arises, certainly Court will give its opinion. But, we do not consider it to be appropriate and fit in these references to undertake this exercise and decide these questions only now of academic interest at the costs of other litigants, who are waiting for hearing of their cases for last two decades.

Accordingly, the questions referred to the Court are returned unanswered.