JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—These two appeals relate to the same assessee but for two assessment years, i.e., 1993-94 and 1994-95. The assesses during the course of hearing the appeals before the Tribunal, filed a certificate issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka (Central), Bangalore, dated April 16, 1999, for the two assessment years. The certificate was issued under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS for short), 1998, showing that the tax due for the said two assessment years has been fully paid under the said scheme. It was further submitted that in view of the aforesaid settlement under the scheme, the said appeals were not maintainable for the said period. Acting on the said submission, the appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal as they had become infructuous. Aggrieved by the said order the Revenue is in appeal. 2. The question whether the Revenue could prosecute an appeal in respect of an assessment year, covered under the aforesaid scheme was the subject matter of the decision before this court in the case of Bhawaralal (HUF) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 219 CTR (Kar) 300 . It has been held as under at paragraphs 16 and 17: 16. The Central Government having accepted this decision has issued instructions to implement the Scheme subject to the above decision in its Clarification bearing No. 149/152/1998 TPL, dated December 17, 1998, with reference to the declarations filed by the assessees under the Scheme and the manner in which they shall be regulated, as under: (i) The assessee has the option of filing declaration either in respect of arrears disputed in his appeal or of taxes involved in Departmental appeal or for both independently of each other. (ii) For declarations relating to the Departmental appeals also the existing Form No. IA can be used. In such cases, there are no outstanding taxes and hence the process of working out "disputed income" from outstanding taxes is not involved. The entire income under dispute in various grounds of appeal may constitute "disputed income" on which the sum payable can be determined. In respect of Departmental appeals, the declaration has to be for the entire income disputed in such appeals. (iii) Where the declarations in respect of Departmental appeals are accepted by the designated authority, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may proceed to withdraw such appeals on passing of the order under section 90(2). In respect of Departmental appeals, the declaration has to be for the entire income disputed in such appeals. (iii) Where the declarations in respect of Departmental appeals are accepted by the designated authority, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may proceed to withdraw such appeals on passing of the order under section 90(2). (iv) In the event of cross-appeals on same issue. If the assessee does not opt to declare in respect of taxes involved in Departmental appeals, the provisions of section 92 would not apply as these place bar only in respect of issue covered in the declaration in respect of which order under section 90 has been passed. This will also be the position, if the assessee does not opt for declaration in respect of other Departmental appeals. The appeals in all such cases should not be withdrawn. The above clarifications are not with reference to the provisions of the Act providing for the Scheme, but an interpretation sought to be placed on the legal position and the manner in which the same is ought to be implemented. The present case on hand having been decided by the Tribunal after the decision of the Delhi High Court in All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (supra) the appeals by the Department could not be placed on a separate pedestal as was required to be done under the proviso to section 92. A declaration made in terms of the Scheme was therefore required to be considered with respect to the tax arrears pertaining to that assessment year irrespective of whether the dispute was in question in an appeal preferred by the assessee or in an appeal preferred by the Revenue. 17. In the instant case, when the assessees filed their declaration, the appeals of the Revenue were also pending. The determination by the designated authority of the tax arrears would necessarily have to take into consideration such arrears including what was raised in dispute by the Revenue by way of an appeal. This was a duty cast on the designated authority notwithstanding that the declaration may not have included the tax arrears in dispute which was sought to be raised by way of an appeal by the Revenue. This was a duty cast on the designated authority notwithstanding that the declaration may not have included the tax arrears in dispute which was sought to be raised by way of an appeal by the Revenue. It was open to the designated authority to have called upon the assessees to avail the benefit of settlement only if all tax arrears, including those which are disputed by the Revenue and which are pending in appeal as on the date of such determination, are paid. In the instant case, the designated authority having determined the tax arrears as defined under the Act, would be deemed to include the amount of tax determined on or before March 31, 1998, in respect of that assessment year as modified by any appellate order, but remaining unpaid on the date of declaration and further, as held by the Delhi High Court, it would include such arrears, which after determination have been set aside, but such setting aside has not been accepted by the Department and continues to remain under challenge before a court or Tribunal. Section 90 required the designated authority to determine the amount payable by the declarant in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme and grant a certificate setting forth the particulars of the tax arrears and the sum payable after such determination towards full and final settlement of tax arrears. And upon payment of such amount, determined and on an order having been passed under sub-section (1) of section 90, it is conclusive and shall not be reopened. In the instant case, the designated authority having issued such a certificate, the same attains finality. In fact this court relied on the judgment of the apex court in the case of Killick Nixon Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Others, AIR 2003 SC 312 in coming to the said conclusion. It is not in dispute that the said law covers this case also. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in these two appeals. Accordingly they are rejected.