2015 (12) TMI 201 - HC - Income Tax

Extension of time for deposit of the arrears of tax - Held that - Undisputedly, order under Section 245D(4) of the Act was passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission on 12.12.2014 asking the petitioner to pay the amount of tax together with interest in four monthly equal instalments with the last instalment payable by 31.3.2015. It was also directed that in case of failure to make the payment within the prescribed period, the immunity granted under the provisions of Section 245H(1) of the Act shall be withdrawn. The petitioner had made a request vide letters dated 28.3.2015 and 31.3.2015 before the Settlement Commission for further extension of time of 14 months for payment of tax. However, by that time, he had already defaulted the three instalments. Vide order dated 23.4.2015, the Settlement Commission disposed of the said applications directing the petitioner to pay the amount on or before 10.5.2015 and to pay the final instalment by 31.7.2015. The petitioner could not make the payment by the due date. Instead he filed the present petition in this Court. The petitioner has already been given sufficient opportunity to deposit the amount. Even some part of the amount has been realised from the sale of the jewellery of the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed by the Settlement Commission after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any error in the said order, warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks quashing/modifying order for extension of time for tax deposit.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a real estate dealer, surrendered income during an Income Tax Act search. Various notices and proceedings followed, leading to a settlement before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Despite extensions and concessions, the petitioner failed to meet payment deadlines. The Settlement Commission directed payment by specific dates, which the petitioner did not comply with, leading to the present writ petition. The court noted the previous opportunities given to the petitioner, including the realization of some amount from jewellery sale. The court upheld the Settlement Commission's decision, finding no error warranting intervention. The petition was dismissed.