2018 (2) TMI 1349 - HC - Income Tax

Extension of time to pay the third installment on the undisclosed income under the Income Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016 - reasons given by the petitioner in her letters seeking extension of time - Held that - The ground taken by the petitioner, that she is 70 years of age and suffering from ill health which had become a hurdle in her day-to-day work, cannot be a ground to seek an extension of time. Assertion that the petitioner merely forgot to pay the third installment is unbelievable and a lame excuse. Such declarations are unique and made after due deliberation and thought. Amount payable towards the third installment was substantial. Clearly, the petitioner was unable to pay the amount, and thereafter has pleaded and attributed it to loss of memory. The time period fixed was mandatory and had to be adhered to. The petitioner has not made out an extraordinary case which would have justified invoking writ jurisdiction and grant of extension beyond the stipulated time, even assuming that the fixed period of time stipulated under the Scheme could be extended by the Board under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If such excuses were to be accepted, then extension of time would have to be granted as a routine in other cases as well.

Issues:
1. Extension of time for payment of third installment under the Income Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016.
2. Rejection of request for extension by the petitioner.
3. Justifiability of reasons provided by the petitioner for seeking extension.
4. Consideration of age and health condition of the petitioner in granting extension.
5. Application of writ jurisdiction for extension of time.
6. Possibility of adjustment or refund of amounts paid.

Extension of Time for Payment:
The judgment addressed the issue of extension of time for payment of the third installment under the Income Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016. The petitioner, Meena Rastogi, sought an extension due to health reasons and forgetfulness in paying the installment. However, the request was rejected based on the grounds that declarants were aware of the payment schedule and failure to pay on time did not justify relaxation in payment after the due date. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the time period fixed for payment and the lack of an extraordinary case to warrant an extension.

Rejection of Extension Request:
The court examined the grounds provided by the petitioner in her letters seeking an extension of time and concluded that the reasons presented were insufficient to interfere with the impugned order and grant an extension. The court found the petitioner's assertion of forgetting to pay the installment to be unbelievable and a lame excuse. It highlighted the substantial amount payable and the mandatory adherence to the fixed time period under the Scheme.

Justifiability of Reasons Provided:
The judgment scrutinized the reasons given by the petitioner, emphasizing that age and ill health could not serve as grounds for seeking an extension of time. The court dismissed the petitioner's claim of forgetfulness, stating that such declarations are made after due deliberation and thought, and the excuse of loss of memory was not acceptable.

Consideration of Age and Health Condition:
The court addressed the petitioner's age and health condition as reasons for seeking an extension but concluded that these factors could not justify granting an extension of time. It highlighted that the fixed time period had to be adhered to and that the petitioner did not present an extraordinary case that would warrant invoking writ jurisdiction for an extension.

Application of Writ Jurisdiction:
The judgment clarified that the petitioner's case did not present sufficient grounds to issue notice in the writ petition. It emphasized that the dismissal of the present writ petitions would not prevent the filing of a fresh writ petition seeking adjustment or refund of the amounts paid, without commenting on the specific question of refund or adjustment.

Possibility of Adjustment or Refund:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's intention to file a separate writ petition to challenge the provision prohibiting refunds and adjustments. It clarified that the dismissal of the present writ petitions would not prevent the filing of a fresh petition on these aspects, ensuring that the decision did not operate as constructive res judicata.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the writ petition seeking an extension of time for payment of the third installment under the Income Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016, based on the lack of sufficient grounds and the mandatory nature of the payment schedule. It allowed for the possibility of filing a separate petition regarding adjustment or refund of the amounts paid.

← Previous Next →