2018 (8) TMI 576 - HC - Income Tax

Application for adjustment or refund of the amount paid under Income Declaration Scheme 2016 rejected - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemlatha Gargya (2002 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT) is relevant which reads having held that the assessee are not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme since the payments made by them were not in terms of the Scheme, we direct the Revenue Authorities to refund or adjust the amounts already deposited by the assessee in purported compliance with the provisions of the Scheme to the concerned assessee in accordance with law. All the appeals are accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. Considering the aforesaid we quash the impugned order and direct the respondent - Revenue to adjust the amount of ₹ 3,28,068/- which has been deposited by the petitioner in relevant Assessment Year 2014-15

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's application for adjustment or refund of the amount paid under Income Declaration Scheme - 2016 rejected by the respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner applied for the Income Declaration Scheme - 2016, which allowed individuals to disclose undisclosed income and assets. The petitioner disclosed an undisclosed income of ?29,16,156 for Assessment Year 2014-15, with a total tax payable of ?13,12,271. However, the application was rejected as it was selected for scrutiny, and a notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The petitioner had paid an installment of ?3,28,068 on 19/11/2016 and sought a refund of the amount. The petitioner argued for adjustment based on Clause No.191 of the Finance Act, 2016, citing precedents like Hemlatha Gargya Vs. CIT and cases from Andhra Pradesh and Bombay High Courts.

In the case of Patchala Seethramaiah, the Apex Court held that if a declarant paid tax beyond the prescribed period under a voluntary disclosure scheme, the declaration was non-est, and the revenue was not entitled to retain the amount. Similarly, in Sajan Enterprises, it was ruled that any amount paid after 90 days under the scheme must be refunded. The petitioner sought adjustment of the amount paid under the Income Declaration Scheme - 2016 against the outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2014-15.

The respondent opposed the adjustment, stating that the Scheme of 2016 did not provide for such adjustments. However, considering the precedents and the law laid down by the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the Revenue to adjust the amount of ?3,28,068 deposited by the petitioner for the relevant Assessment Year 2014-15. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and disposed of without any order as to costs.