9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 832 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68, u/s 69A and section 69 - assessee stated that he has disclosed u/s 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 in respect of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS), 2016 - deposit of amount due under the IDS, 2016 after the due date of 30.09.2017 that is on 21.12.2017 - AO observed that certificate of declaration under IDS, 2016 has not been produced by the assessee to establish the claim so made - HELD THAT - We take note of the Notification No. 103/2019 dated 13.12.2019 which has extended the due date for payment of tax under the IDS, 2016 along with interest and penalty in respect of income declared under the IDS, 2016 to 31.01.2020. Considering the fact of deposit of tax payable under the IDS, 2016 by the assessee though after the original due date but much prior to the extended due date as well as prior to the issuance of Notification No. 103/2019, we find it proper to remit the matter back to the file of ld. AO for the purpose of verification of these facts and compute the interest if, applicable, in terms of the notification referred above It is important to note that assessee has discharged his tax liability in respect of declaration made by him under the IDS, 2016. Having done so, the benefits available under the IDS, 2016 should be given to the assessee. The Central Government itself relaxed the condition for making the payment of last installment by extending the dates from 30.09.2017 to 31.01.2020. In the explanatory memorandum to Notification No. 103/2019, it is certified that no person is being adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to this notification. Thus, the intention of the Central Government is in no way to adversely affect any person in relation to IDS, 2016. In the present case, assessee has duly discharged its tax liability under the IDS, 2016 which is prior to the extended due date as well as before the notification itself and, therefore, there is no occasion to put him in an adverse situation. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the correctness of the assessment order, additions made under sections 68, 69A, and 69 of the Income Tax Act, and compliance with the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS). Assessment Order: The appeal challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2015-16, contending that the assessment order was erroneous on points of law and not based on correct facts. The appellant raised concerns about the additions made under sections 68, 69A, and 69 of the Income Tax Act, which were confirmed by the Commissioner. The appellant argued that the proposed additions had already been included in the declaration made under the IDS, 2016, and thus, taxing the same amount twice would be unjust. However, the assessing officer rejected the claim due to the absence of a valid certificate under IDS, 2016. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal citing non-compliance with the IDS, 2016 provisions. Compliance with Income Declaration Scheme, 2016: The appellant claimed compliance with the IDS, 2016 by submitting all necessary documents and making payments towards the undisclosed income declared under the scheme. Despite the appellant's timely payments before the extended due date, Form No. 4 under IDS, 2016 had not been issued. The appellant contended that there was no interest liability, as stated in Notification No. 103/2019, but expressed willingness to pay interest if applicable. The Senior DR supported the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the non-compliance with the IDS, 2016 requirements. The Tribunal noted the appellant's claim for telescoping the declared income under IDS, 2016 for the additions made in the assessment, and remanded the matter to the assessing officer for verification of compliance with IDS, 2016 provisions. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the assessing officer to verify the appellant's compliance with the IDS, 2016 and compute any applicable interest. It emphasized that the appellant had discharged the tax liability under the IDS, 2016 before the extended due date, and therefore, should receive the benefits available under the scheme. The Tribunal highlighted the Central Government's intention not to adversely affect individuals regarding the IDS, 2016, and concluded that the appellant should not be put in an adverse situation given the timely tax payment. The matter was remitted back to the assessing officer for further examination. This summary captures the key issues and details of the judgment, preserving the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.
|
