2019 (1) TMI 1019 - HC - Income Tax

Payment of 3rd installment as per the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 been delayed - petitioner prayed for extension of time citing acute financial difficulties - Held that - Perusal of the Scheme would suggest that the same does not provide for any extension of time for payment of any of the installments of payment of tax. Section 187 which pertains to time for payment of tax, in subsection (3) provides that if the declarant fails to pay the tax, surcharge and penalty in respect of the declaration made before the dates specified under subsection (1), the declaration filed by him shall be deemed never to have made under the scheme. These are strong indications that the legislature does not envisage any extension of time for payment of tax under the Scheme. No directions contrary to such legislation scheme can be granted. In this context, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hemalatha Gargya Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 2002 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT .

Summary

Issues:
Prayer for direction to accept delayed payment of 3rd installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent to accept the delayed payment of the 3rd installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The petitioner, an individual, had declared undisclosed income under the Scheme and was required to pay a total sum of &8377; 63,68,232 in three installments. While the petitioner paid the first two installments, financial difficulties prevented the payment of the third installment. The petitioner requested an extension of time for payment, which was not provided for in the Scheme. The court noted that the Scheme did not allow for any extension of time for payment of tax, as failing to pay within the specified dates would render the declaration void. Citing the decision in Hemalatha Gargya Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 9 SCC 510, the court emphasized that no extension of time could be granted contrary to the legislative scheme.

The court highlighted that Section 187 of the Scheme specifically stated that failure to pay tax, surcharge, and penalty within the specified dates would invalidate the declaration. The court emphasized that the legislature did not envision any extension of time for payment under the Scheme. While the petitioner's counsel suggested applying for a refund or adjustment of the amount already deposited, the court refrained from commenting on this and stated that the petitioner could approach the authorities for such matters. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of, indicating that no direction contrary to the legislative scheme could be granted in this case.