M.S. Viswambharan vs Commissioner of Income Tax

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner and senior standing counsel appearing ''for the respondents. The petitioner applied for settlement of Income Tax liability for the year 1982-83 under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme of 1998. The proceedings issued, vide exhibit P5, show that liability due for 1982-83 was only interest payable under various provisions of the Income Tax Act and the petitioner was allowed to settle the liability by paying 50 per cent, in terms of the Scheme. However, the petitioner''s case is that there was balance tax liability for 1982-83 and if that was reckoned the petitioner would have been able to settle the liability by paying 30 per cent, of the total disputed income to which balance tax is attributable. However, the Department''s case is that tax liability of Rs. 87,232 got adjusted from refund due for 1984-85 as is evident from the exhibit P3 proceedings. The petitioner''s counsel contended that adjustment u/s 155 is made without notice to the petitioner and, therefore, adjustment is not binding on the petitioner. However, it is seen that against the exhibit P2 demand for 1982-83 wherein demand of tax alone was Rs. 7,27,925, the petitioner discharged the liability after reckoning the adjustment made vide exhibit P3. I do not think the petitioner is entitled to challenge the exhibit P3 proceedings after acting upon the same by making payments of balance amount due merely because the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme would have resulted in better benefit to the petitioner, had the adjustment not been made by the Assessing Officer.

The petitioner having discharged the balance tax liability after reckoning the adjustment made, vide exhibit P3, cannot request for reversal of the adjustment after three years of the order.

O.P., therefore, fails and is dismissed.