HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Dr. (Mrs.) Renuka Datla and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka and Another
Civil Appeal No. 4731 of 2000 / Civil Appeal No. 4732 of 2000 / Civil Appeal No. 4733 of 2000
[2002] Supp. 5 SCR 166 ·
143(3) · 234A · 234B · 234C · 271(1)(c) (incidental source recital; no penalty merits decided)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench · Ruma Pal, J. · B.N. Srikrishna, J.
Assessment years: 1992-93 (lead appeal; separate years for companion appellants not specified)
01 · Facts of the case
The three appeals challenged rejection of declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The Court used Dr. Renuka Datla’s AY 1992-93 assessment as the lead account. An original assessment dated 31 March 1995 was partly modified after the CIT(A)’s order. Amounts computed by the November 1997 order, as modified in January 1998 after an interest-waiver direction, were paid before 31 March 1998. Some remitted additions were later conceded, but the Tribunal appeal also challenged confirmed additions and the levy of interest (SCR 171–172).
On 31 December 1998 the AO recomputed the liability, again including interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C; the demand remained unpaid. The lead declaration was filed on 28 January 1999. The designated authority rejected it because there were supposedly no arrears on 31 March 1998, the interest dispute had disappeared after waiver, and the December demand was treated as a new demand. The Andhra Pradesh High Court sustained the rejection (SCR 172–173).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 87(m)(i) attaches the 31 March 1998 cut-off to the original determination, not to the later modification giving effect to an appellate order. It does not require that modification itself to have been completed by the cut-off. The relevant modified liability must remain unpaid on the declaration date. The December 1998 determination here was a modification of the earlier assessment for KVSS purposes, rather than a fresh, unrelated assessment. A concession as to computation does not itself take the amount outside the definition of tax arrears (SCR 169–171, 173–174).
Eligibility nevertheless also required qualifying pending proceedings under section 95(i)(c). The designated authority could not decide the likely outcome of an existing appeal and refuse the Scheme on that basis. The High Court’s premise that the whole demand had been conceded was also wrong: the demand included unconceded confirmed items and disputed interest that remained before the Tribunal. Thus, on these facts there was an appeal pending in respect of the relevant arrears. The Court did not dispense with the statutory pendency condition or adjudicate the tax additions and interest on their merits (SCR 174).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
03 · Judicial decision
The Court allowed all three appeals, set aside the High Court orders and quashed the designated authority’s rejections. It directed consideration of the declarations under section 88 within eight weeks of the Supreme Court judgment, with the same direction in the factually similar companion appeals. There was no order as to costs (SCR 174E–G).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Assessees on eligibility and reconsideration
Three appeals allowed; rejection orders quashed; declarations to be considered within eight weeks; no costs
Final resolution of the identified eligibility objections, followed by administrative reconsideration of the declarations
No settlement amount or certificate was issued by the Court; no automatic immunity, general extension of filing time or merits deletion of additions/interest was ordered.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Keep three dates and two questions separate: original determination, appellate modification and declaration; then ask whether the modified amount remained unpaid and whether the required proceeding was pending. A demand modified after the cut-off is not automatically a new demand, while an unpaid demand alone does not establish Scheme eligibility. The authority’s view that the appellant will lose an appeal is not a substitute for applying the statutory pendency test.
This was an eligibility reconsideration decision under a closed Scheme, not a completed-settlement finality case. The eight-week direction concerned processing the declarations. It did not judicially grant every substantive concession claimed. The source’s inconsistent dates, item numbers and interest-section references should not be silently used to build a corrected assessment schedule.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
Proposition-specific source paragraphs and PDF pages
- topic
- Identity, bench and appeal numbers
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 1; 3
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered text; SCR 166 and 168
- source role
- reported metadata and judicial text
- topic
- Scheme and original-determination cut-off; quoted deadline
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 4; 5; 6
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered text; SCR 169–171
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Assessment, payment, pendency and source discrepancies
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 6; 7; 8
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered text; SCR 171–173
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Concession, pendency, reconsideration and costs
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 8; 9
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered text; SCR 173F–174G
- source role
- judicial text
Judicial authorship and separate opinions
Ruma Pal, J.Act identified in the reviewed source
Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 — Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998Connection with Income-tax Act proceedings
The dispute concerns liabilities, assessments or recovery under the Income-tax Act, 1961, but the settlement/disclosure provisions belong to the separately identified Finance Act.Provisions of the separately identified settlement or disclosure scheme
87(m)(i); 87(f); 88; 89; 95(i)(c)Historical scheme status
Closed historical scheme. This note does not describe an available present-day settlement or disclosure facility.Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 9 PDF pages; SHA-256 07a837117bf8e8e5475fe58241851da4c095b3821ae198bc34e95914be3cc498. Original bytes preserved. Complete unnumbered judicial text on physical pages 4–9/SCR 169–174; case numbers on page 3. Preceding editorial headnote excluded. No adjacent judgment.
- The opening judicial account says the Scheme operated until 31 January 1999 and the lead declaration was filed on 28 January 1999, while the quoted section 88 and analytical list retain 31 December 1998. The note preserves this printed discrepancy and does not derive a fresh filing rule from the unamended quotation (SCR 169–173).; The original determination is repeatedly dated 31 March 1995, but SCR 173G refers to an assessment order dated 29 March 1996. No independent record has been used to reconcile the dates.; SCR 172 prints sections 243A, 243B and 243C in two intermediate recitals while the issue, opening account and holding concern sections 234A, 234B and 234C. These printed references were visually checked; they are not separate holdings on section 243.; The item-number lists at SCR 172 overlap or differ, including item (viii) in both the confirmed and remitted groups. No item-by-item reconstructed schedule is asserted.; SCR 173A calls the section 271(1)(c) proceedings criminal. This incidental printed description is not adopted as a holding classifying that penalty provision, and no criminal or penalty outcome is stated.; The body’s section 87(f) is visually legible although corpus OCR renders it as 87(t). The note uses the visual reading; section 95(i)(c) is also printed as 95(1)(c) in places.
Statutory scope
No automatic mapping to the Income-tax Act, 2025 or present-law certification. Apply the statutory text for the relevant year.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Comprehensive subsequent judicial and statutory treatment has not been verified. Comparisons with the lower-court proceedings and cited precedents are confined to the treatment expressly recorded in this judgment; those separate decisions have not been independently reviewed here. No current-law or Income-tax Act, 2025 mapping is certified.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- reported judgment — PDF 9 pages
SHA-256: 07a837117bf8e8e5475fe58241851da4c095b3821ae198bc34e95914be3cc498
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.