2017 (9) TMI 666 - HC - Income Tax

Application for condonation of delay in payment of instalment under the Income Declaration Scheme of 2016 (IDS) beyond the prescribed due date or relaxation/extension of due date - Held that - The concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax is authorised to deal with the application on a case to case basis, after verifying the claim of the declarant through the relevant Bank statements/certificates, etc., and consider on merits the condonation in appropriate cases provided the amount payable as per the first instalment as well as the second instalment is paid on 3132017 by the concerned declarant. The petitioner in the writ petition has placed reliance on such exceptions carved out by even the Board s circular. In the circumstances, we direct that the application seeking condonation of delay, be considered in accordance with law and particularly in the light of the Board s circular/clarification which we have referred above. The application be considered in accordance with law on its own merits as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in making payment under the Income Declaration Scheme of 2016.

Analysis:
The petition sought condonation of delay in the payment of the first installment under the Income Declaration Scheme of 2016. The petitioner claimed that the delay was due to bona fide reasons and emphasized the need to prevent genuine hardship by invoking Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner highlighted that the delay was not intentional and urged for a direction to consider the application in accordance with the law. The court noted that the Government had received condonation petitions from declarants under the IDS and had issued guidelines to address technical difficulties faced by some declarants in depositing the first installment. The court observed that the Board had decided not to grant condonation for delays due to various reasons such as lack of liquidity or confusion about the due date, as most declarants had adhered to the prescribed schedule. However, exceptions were made for cases where the declarant had no control over the circumstances leading to the delay.

The court examined the Board's circular and concluded that the application for condonation of delay should be considered in accordance with the law and the circular's provisions. The court directed that the application be evaluated based on its merits expeditiously within six weeks from the date of the order. It was clarified that the court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's application. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs involved.