Judgment:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the following questions of law said to be arising out of its order dated January 17, 1995, passed in I.T.A. No. 89/JP of 1995 because an application under Section 256(1) has been rejected by the Tribunal on January 22, 1996, by holding that no question of law arises out of the appellate order :
'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) on the ground that the assessee was ignorant of law whereas the facts indicate that he defied the law even after service of notice ?
2. Whether the Income tax Appellate Tribunal's order cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) is not perverse ?'
3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent that since filing of the present application and during the pendency of this case the Central Board of Revenue has promulgated the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, popularly known as KVSS under Section 90(2) read with Section 91 of the Act of 1998 granting immunity from the existing liabilities of penalty and interest on making the requisite payment under that Scheme as determined by the designated authority under the Scheme and on obtaining the certificate thereunder. On such payment the pending proceedings in respect of demands covered by such Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme shall stand abated.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-assessee has availed of the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and has been issued certificate to that effect for the assessment year in question on April 8,1999, certifying that the designated authority by order dated January 25, 1999, has determined the amount of Rs. 10,284 payable by the declarant in accordance with the provisions of the scheme and the declarant has paid the said sum on February 4, 1999, and granting immunity from the imposition of penalty under the Act of 1961 in respect of the matters covered in the aforesaid declaration.
5. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the question raised in the present case has become of academic importance. Now no penalty can be imposed which already stood deleted when the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme came into existence and the benefit has been availed of by the assessee on paying the amount determined under the Scheme by the designated authority thereunder.
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as having abated. There shall be no order as to costs.