2022 (12) TMI 948 - HC - Income Tax

Condone the delay in making the third payment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 - Scope amendment to the scheme by Finance (No.2) Act of 2019 - HELD THAT - In terms of the said amendment, notification dated 13th December, 2019 was issued by the Ministry of Finance by which the payment could be made on or before 31 st January, 2020. Since this amendment has been given retrospective effect and the appellant having paid third installment well before the notified date, this Court is of the prima facie view that the benefit of such amendment can be extended to the assessee. It appears that the representation given by the appellant to the PCIT 8 (Kolkata) dated 13th January, 2020 was not answered and stated to be still pending before the authority. Even much earlier, AO had completed the assessment. Thus, the assessee is left in a piquant situation and is before this Court for necessary relief. While upholding the view taken by the learned Single Bench, we are inclined to grant liberty to the appellant to approach the respondent authorities by way of fresh representation in which the amendment made by Finance (No.2) Act of 2019 as well as notification dated 13th December, 2019 can be placed before the concerned authority. Added to the fact that the third installment had been paid by the appellant well before the cut off date together with interest and if such representation is given to the appropriate authority, the same shall be considered and a speaking order be passed on merit and in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of server copy of this order. AO is directed not to initiate any coercive step against the appellant for recovery of the tax and penalty pursuant to the assessment, which was framed on 26th December, 2017. The appellant is directed to enclose a copy of the representation dated 13th January, 2020 along with the said fresh representation, which has been directed to be submitted in terms of the above order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
2. Challenge against the dismissal of a writ petition under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with an application to condone a delay of 13 days in filing an appeal. The reasons for the delay were considered satisfactory by the court, leading to the condonation of the delay. The application for condonation of delay was allowed without any order as to costs.

2. Moving on to the challenge against the dismissal of a writ petition under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, the appellant sought various reliefs, including regularizing a payment made under the scheme and restraining the assessing officer from further proceedings. The Single Bench had dismissed the writ petition due to non-compliance with the scheme's terms within the stipulated time. The appellant then filed an appeal against this order.

3. The court heard arguments from both parties and noted that a subsequent development, post the writ petition dismissal, was raised by the appellant. However, the court clarified that they cannot assess the previous order based on new material not presented earlier. Yet, if the subsequent development benefits the assessee, the court can consider appropriate directions. The scheme required the third installment of income tax to be paid by a specific date, and any delay was not allowed. Notably, an amendment to the scheme allowed for delayed payments with interest, with retrospective effect from a specified date.

4. Considering the unique circumstances, the court upheld the Single Bench's view but granted the appellant liberty to make a fresh representation to the authorities, highlighting the amendment and the payment made before the notified date. The court directed the assessing officer not to take coercive steps for tax recovery until the fresh representation is considered. The appellant was instructed to enclose previous representations with the fresh one for review. The appeal and related application were disposed of without any costs.

5. The judgment concluded with directions for expeditious provision of a certified copy of the order upon compliance with legal formalities, signed by the respective judges.