2018 (2) TMI 1601 - HC - Income Tax

Delay in payment of last installment of the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 - Held that - Admittedly there is no provision under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 to grant any time after 30.9.2017 to pay the amount of installment. In absence of any provision we cannot permit the petitioner to deposit the amount or direct the petitioner to deposit the amount before the department. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Vijay Omprakash Bansal 2001 (12) TMI 24 - BOMBAY High Court is distinguishable on facts. For the above mentioned reasons and in absence of any provision under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 no case is made out to quash the letter issued by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax II Indore as prayed is made out.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of application for depositing the last installment under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order rejecting his application to deposit the third and last installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The petitioner declared undisclosed income and was required to pay taxes in installments. He paid the first two installments on time but failed to pay the third installment due to health reasons affecting both him and his wife. The Principal Commissioner rejected his request for condonation of the delay, citing the absence of such provision in the Scheme.

The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the beneficial interpretation of the Scheme to serve both the assessee and the Revenue. He argued that the requirement for payment was administrative, not judicial, and that the reasons for the delay were valid. However, the Court noted the absence of any provision in the Scheme to grant additional time for payment after the deadline. The Court found the cited case distinguishable on facts and held that without a specific provision, they could not permit the petitioner to deposit the amount after the deadline.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that in the absence of any provision in the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, to allow for a delay in payment, the petitioner's case did not merit quashing the order rejecting his application. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Scheme's provisions and declined to intervene in the absence of a specific provision for condonation of delay.