JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. K. Kulshrestha J. By this appeal under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, Act ), appellant-assessee assails order dated May 30, 2002, of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, in Income-tax Appeal No. 216/Ind/2000, pertaining to assessment year 1995-96. appeal has been admitted on following questions of law: 1. Whether under facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that after full and final settlement of tax arrears under section 90 of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 in respect of all matters, Commissioner of Incometax had jurisdiction to revise said assessment order under section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether under facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that Commissioner of Income-tax had jurisdiction to revise initial assessment order when it was rectified under section 154 of Income-tax Act, 1961 and did not survive after having undergone rectification? appellant is company registered under Companies Act, 1956, engaged in manufacture of steel pipes, tubes and cold rolled formed sections. Assessment order for assessment year 1995-96 was passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range-2, Indore, on March 27, 1998, under section 143(3) of Act. Aggrieved by said order, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, on finding that there was mistake in calculation of depreciation, Assessing Officer rectified assessment suo motu under provisions of section 154 of Act, on January 28, 1999. appellant thereafter filed declaration under section 88 of Chapter IV of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, called Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 , (for short, KVS Scheme ), on December 31, 1999, after rectification of order under section 154 of Act. declaration was accepted under section 92 of KVS Scheme as full and final settlement by designated authority under KVS Scheme, vide order dated February 25, 1999 (annexure C-2). appellant paid tax of Rs. 1,53,774 in accordance therewith. certificate dated April 28, 1999, as contemplated under section 90(2) of KVS Scheme (annexure-D), was duly issued and matter was finally settled. In view of above settlement, appeal pending before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was dismissed as infructuous vide order annexure E. However, in purported exercise of power under section 263 of Act, Commissioner of Income-tax issued notice (annexure F1) proposing to reopen assessment. appellant contends that as result of rectification of assessment, it would be rectified order that would prevail and when entire material was placed in declaration made under KVS Scheme, it was not open to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to reopen issue in purported exercise of power under section 263 of Act. Accordingly, action was opposed vide annexure D. respondent, however, passed order under section 263 (annexure H) on March 29, 2000, and set aside assessment with direction to recalculate deductions under sections 80HH, 80-I and 80HHC. appeal filed to Tribunal was dismissed in so far as above claim was concerned. It is in this background that appellant has approached this court in appeal which has been admitted on questions formulated hereinabove. Learned counsel for appellant has invited attention to Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Section 90 of KVS Scheme provides for time and manner of payment of tax arrear. It reads as follows: 90. Time and manner of payment of tax arrear. (1) Within sixty days from date of receipt of declaration under section 88, designated authority shall, by order, determine amount payable by declarant in accordance with provisions of this Scheme and grant certificate in such form as may be prescribed to declarant setting forth therein particulars of tax arrear and sum payable after such determination towards full and final settlement of tax arrears: Provided that where any material particular furnished in declaration is found to be false, by designated authority at any stage, it shall be presumed as if declaration was never made and all consequences under direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment under which proceedings against declarant are or were pending shall be deemed to have been revived: Provided further that designated authority may amend certificate for reasons to be recorded in writing. (2) declarant shall pay sum determined by designated authority within thirty days of passing of order by designated authority and intimate fact of such payment to designated authority along with proof thereof and designated authority shall thereupon issue certificate to declarant. (3) Every order passed under sub-section (1), determining sum payable under this Scheme, shall be conclusive as to matters stated therein and no matter covered by such order shall be reopened in any other proceedings under direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment or under any other law for time being in force. (4) Where declarant has filed appeal or reference or reply to show-cause notice against any order or notice giving rise to tax arrear before any authority or Tribunal or court, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of any law for time being in force, such appeal or reference or reply shall be deemed to have been withdrawn on day on which order referred to in sub-section (2) is passed: Provided that where declarant has filed writ petition or appeal or reference before any High Court or Supreme Court against any order in respect of tax arrear, declarant shall file application before such High Court or Supreme Court for withdrawing such writ petition, appeal or reference and after withdrawal of such writ petition, appeal or reference with leave of court, furnish proof of such withdrawal along with intimation referred to in sub-section (2). Section 92 restrains appellate authority to proceed in certain cases. provision reads as extracted below: 92. Appellate authority not to proceed in certain cases. No appellate authority shall proceed to decide any issue relating to disputed chargeable expenditure, disputed chargeable interest, disputed income, disputed wealth, disputed value of gift or tax arrear specified in declaration and in respect of which order had been made under section 90 by designated authority or payment of sum determined under that section: Provided that in case appeal is filed by Department of Central Government in respect of such issue relating to disputed chargeable expenditure, disputed chargeable interest, disputed income, disputed wealth, disputed value of gift or tax of arrear (except where tax arrear comprises only penalty, fine or interest), appellate authority shall decide appeal irrespective of such declaration. In this connection judgment of apex court in Killick Nixon Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2002] 258 ITR 627 has been brought to our notice. In said case, their Lordships have observed that order made by designated authority under section 90 of Scheme is intended to be conclusive in respect of tax arrears and sums payable after determination towards full and final settlement of tax arrears. Upon such declaration being made, tax arrears being determined and paid and certificate issued under section 92, there is no jurisdiction for Assessing Officer to reopen assessment by notice under section 143 of Income-tax Act, 1961, except where case falls under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 90 when it is found that any material particular furnished in declaration is found to be false. Under proviso to sub-section (1) it is clear that if any material particular furnished in declaration is found to be false by designated authority at any stage, it shall be presumed as if declaration was never made and all consequences under direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment under which proceedings against declarant are or were pending shall be deemed to have been revived. second proviso also gives power to authority to suitably amend certificate for reasons to be recorded in writing. Learned senior counsel for Revenue has brought to our notice order of Commissioner of Income-tax (annexure H). In said order, Commissioner of Income-tax has duly observed that Assessing Officer was not satisfied with explanation of assessee and had thus recalculated deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I after excluding profit from export of trading goods. It was, therefore, not on any concealment of information that it was proposed to proceed under section 263 nor any steps were suggested for cancellation of declaration as per this provision under KVS Scheme. Under these circumstances, we are of considered view that after certificate having been issued under KVS Scheme, it was not permissible to revise said assessment order under section 263 of Income-tax Act on grounds proposed in impugned order (annexure H) and Tribunal, therefore, erred in holding to contrary. In view of our answer to question No. 1, no decision is necessary on question No. 2. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove, with no order as to costs. *** SIDDHARTHA TUBES LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX