Judgment : The issue raised in the original petition is covered by a decision rendered in O.P.No.32887/2000 in favour of the petitioner-assessee. For parity of reasons contained in the said judgment, this original petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is quashed. A copy of the judgment in O.P.No.32887/2000 be annexed along with this judgment. P.R. Raman, J. O.P. No.32887 of 2000 11/07/2008 Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. It is a wholesale dealer of wheat products. For the assessment years 1988-89 to 1989-90 the petitioner was assessed to tax. Aggrieved by the assessment, he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax. While the matter was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Commission, Chennai invoking the provisions contained under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act. The Settlement Commission by order dated 27/3/1996 allowed the application to be proceeded with under Section 245 D (1) of the Act. While so, before passing final orders, a new scheme popularly known as Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme’ was introduced by Finance (No.2) Act 1998. hence, the petitioner claiming benefit under the scheme approached the designated authority, namely. Commissioner of Income tax. He designated authority, after processing the application, passed Ext.P1, order dated 26/2/1999 under Section 90(1) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 determining the amount payable by the declarant towards the full and final settlement of his tax liability under the Scheme. Thereafter, when the matter came up before the Settlement Commission, the petitioner submitted that he has already applied for the benefit under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and that pursuant to the application his declaration made under the KVS Scheme was accepted and amounts were determined by the designated authority under the scheme and so was not interested to prosecute the application. In the circumstances, the Settlement Commission remitted the case of the Income tax Officer stating that the assessee is not co-operating with the proceeding under Section 245D(4) of the Income tax Act. While so, pursuant to Ext.P1 order, a certificate was issued by the designated authority, and the matter became final. It is later that the Commissioner of Income Tax by Ext.P2 order dated 30/10/2000, cancelled the same for reasons stated in the order, which is impugned in this original petition. 2. While so, pursuant to Ext.P1 order, a certificate was issued by the designated authority, and the matter became final. It is later that the Commissioner of Income Tax by Ext.P2 order dated 30/10/2000, cancelled the same for reasons stated in the order, which is impugned in this original petition. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax held that the appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and pending disposal has become non-est. According to the Commissioner, once the assessee had moved the Settlement Commissioner under Section 245 D of the Income Tax Act, the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authority is ousted by virtue of Section 245F (2) of the Income Tax Act. The declaration made by the petitioner before the designated authority under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme is not in accordance with law. As there was no appeal pending, the assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit of the scheme, which is a condition precedent for claiming any relief under the scheme. On the other hand the assessee contended that the declaration under the KVS Scheme was made in terms of the scheme, that the appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Ernakulam and was denuded by the order passed by the Settlement Commission Although the settlement application was admitted under Section 245D(1), that in no way abates the appeal until final orders are passed by the CIT (A) under Section 251. Hence the appeal has to be treated as pending and therefore the assessee was entitled to file declaration under the KVS Scheme. It was also contended that as per Section 95(i)(b) of the KVS Scheme, 1998 the provisions of the scheme are not applicable only in cases where an order has been passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245d(4) of the Income tax Act and in the present case only order passed is under Section 245d(1) admitting the application and no final order was passed under Section 245D(4) and as such the bar under Section 95 under the scheme is not applicable. These objections were overruled by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and confirmed the proposals made and cancelled the certificate issued under the KVS Scheme the correctness of which arises for consideration in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel Sri. These objections were overruled by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and confirmed the proposals made and cancelled the certificate issued under the KVS Scheme the correctness of which arises for consideration in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel Sri. Philip T. Varghese appearing on behalf of the assessee contended that the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax in Ext.P2 is erroneous and contrary to the provisions contained in the Income Tax Act. Relying on Section 245F(2) of the Income Tax Act, he contended that an application made under Section 245(C), which has been allowed to be proceeded with under Section 245(D) will only have the effect of conferring exclusive jurisdiction in the matter on the Settlement Commission until an order is passed under sub section 4 of Section 245D. In other words, it only prevents the authorities from exercising any power under the Income Tax Act, until finality is reached in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission. After admitting the application under Section 245C and in the present case no orders were passed under Section 245D (4) of the Act, sub Section 2 of Section 245F has no application. According to him, Section 245F (2) of the Income Tax Act does not have the effect of taking away the jurisdiction once of the authorities under the Act, but only confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Settlement Commissioner, until final orders are passed under sub section 4 of Section 245D. This is only by way of an interim measure and since no orders as such were passed under Section 245D (4), the application submitted by the assessee under the KVS Scheme is perfectly in order. It was also contended that once a certificate is issued under Section 90(2) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, the matter has become conclusive as to the matters stated therein and it is only thereafter that in terms of sub section 4 of Section 90 the appeal filed by him would stand withdrawn. In other words, the appeal is deemed to be pending until determination of the amount and certificate granted under sub section 2 of Section 90 of the Finance (No.2) Act of 1998. In other words, the appeal is deemed to be pending until determination of the amount and certificate granted under sub section 2 of Section 90 of the Finance (No.2) Act of 1998. It was also contended that in so far as Section 90(4) is not attracted, thus the benefit of the scheme cannot be denied relying on the provision contained in Section 95(c), since the appeal is deemed to be pending as on the date on which he preferred an application under the KVS Scheme Per Contra the learned Standing Counsel Sri. George K. George appearing for the respondent supported the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax and contended that once the assessee opted to settle the matter by approaching the Settlement Commission under Section 245C, and the Commission having processed the application and admitted the same under Section 245D(1), the Settlement Commission alone will have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter, the effect of which is that there cannot be any further order to be passed in the appeal filed by the assessee and in effect it comes to an end. If so, the assessee will not be entitled to the benefit, in the light of the provisions contained in Section 95(1)(c) the KVS Scheme. He also submitted that as per the second proviso to Section 90 of the KVS Scheme of Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, the designated authority can at any time amend the certificate already issued and therefore the cancellation as per Ext.P2 is well within his powers. 4. I have heard both sides. 5. The facts are not in dispute. At the time when the assessee approached the Settlement Commission under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, admittedly an appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Officer. It is true that the Settlement Commission processed the application and admitted the same in terms of Section 245D(1) of the Income Tax Act. But admittedly before final orders are passed thereon, the new Scheme of Finance (No.2) Act 1998 was introduced and the assessee claiming the benefit under the KVS Scheme applied before the designated authority under section 95 of Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 and the designated authority determined the amount payable by the declarant in terms of Section 90 as per Ext.P1 order. Subsequently, a certificate was also issued. Subsequently, a certificate was also issued. As per Section 90(2) such certificate issued under the scheme is conclusive, and no matter covered by such order shall be reopened by any proceedings under direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment or under any other law being in force and by virtue of sub section 4 of Section 90, the appeal, if any, filed by the declarant, shall be deemed to have been withdrawn as on the date on which the order referred to in sub section 2 of Section 90 was passed. Therefore, the appeal shall be deemed to have been withdrawn only when an order under sub section 2 of Section 90 is passed. Therefore, in the present case, the appeal is deemed to be pending as on the date on which an application under the scheme was filed. Thus Section 95(1)(c) of the Act has no application. In so far as the Finance (No.2) Act 1998 is concerned, the only provision by which the appeal deemed to have been withdrawn is sub section 4 of Section 90 to which I have already made reference. The effect of section 245F(2) in my view, is only to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Settlement Commission to exercise the powers and perform the function of the Income Tax Authority under this Act which, means, the reference is to the Income Tax Act, 1961 only. It does not in any way take away the jurisdiction conferred on the designated authority under the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 specifically providing certain benefits to the assessee to do dealt with under the Scheme. Further conferment of exclusive jurisdiction is until final orders are passed under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act only. That does not have the effect of closing the appeal itself, at the stage. It only preludes the authorities from exercising the jurisdiction under this Act and to keep in abeyance the proceedings until final orders are passed under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act. Sub Section 2 of Section 245F is only by way of an interim measure so as to enable the Settlement Commission to exercise all such powers of the Income tax Authorities so as to gave a finality to the proceedings pending before it by passing a final order under Section 245D(4) of the Act. Sub Section 2 of Section 245F is only by way of an interim measure so as to enable the Settlement Commission to exercise all such powers of the Income tax Authorities so as to gave a finality to the proceedings pending before it by passing a final order under Section 245D(4) of the Act. There is no other provision under the Income Tax Act which expressly states that once the matter is referred to the Settlement Commission, it will automatically have the effect of the appeal or any other proceedings being withdrawn. True that once a final order is passed by the Settlement Commission, the matter become conclusive in respect of the matters dealt with by the Commission Admittedly, no such final order was passed by the Settlement Commission in this case and therefore there is no reason to hold that the appeal preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is deemed to have been withdrawn and to deny the benefit there under. In my view, the appeal, though cannot be proceeded with, must be deemed to be pending until final orders are passed under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has submitted an application before the designated authority at a time when the appeal was pending and it is only when a certificate under Section 90(2) is issued that the appeal finally stood withdrawn or closed by virtue of Section 90(2) of Finance (No.2) Act, 1998. Therefore, both the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner of Income Tax, in my view, is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 6. Admittedly, a certificate was issued by the designated authority and became conclusive. It was thereafter that Ext.P2 was passed. There is no provision under the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 specifically conferring any power to cancel the certificate so issued. At any rate, the Commissioner has only referred to second proviso to section 90 under the scheme so as to assume the power. It is only by virtue of the second proviso to Section 90 that the Commissioner has passed the impugned order. The second proviso to Section 90 only enables the designated authority to amend the certificate and not to cancel to same. The word “Amend” in the Oxford Dictionary means Correct error in (document); make proposed minor improvements make better; so etc. Therefore. The second proviso to Section 90 only enables the designated authority to amend the certificate and not to cancel to same. The word “Amend” in the Oxford Dictionary means Correct error in (document); make proposed minor improvements make better; so etc. Therefore. The power to amend does not extend to cancel the certificate as such. Admittedly, this is not a case to attract the first proviso. If so, in the factual situation, the Commissioner has no power to cancel the certificate issued in favour of the assessee. In the result Ext.P2 is quashed and the Original petition is allowed.