9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r for a small portion of the installment not been paid for a short time. Under the circumstances, impugned communication dated 18. 9. 2017 is set aside. The respondent shall not reject the petitioner's declaration only on the ground of non payment of installments within time limit. All other conditions of the Scheme would be open for the respondents to verify with respect to which no controversy has been raised before us and we have therefore, not commented upon. The petitioner shall however deposit interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the period of delay in depositing such sum. Decided in favor of assessee. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2497 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2018 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te. Subsection( 3) of section 187 provides that if the declarant fails to pay the tax, surcharge and penalty in respect of the declaration made under section 183 on or before the date specified under subsection( 1), the declaration filed by him shall be deemed never to have been made under this Scheme. Section 191 of the Act provides that any amount of tax and surcharge paid under section 184 or penalty paid under section 185 in pursuance of a declaration made under section 183, shall not be refundable. In terms of subsection (1) of section 187, the Central Government has notified the following three dates for payment of tax and penalty as per sections 184 and 185 of the Act in three installments. First installment of 25% to be paid on or b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the Government Revenue on 30. 11. 2016. As soon as the petitioner realised this mistake, short fall of ₹ 5, 62, 500/was also deposited on 27. 12. 2016 which was also accepted by the Commissioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had deposited the second and third installments on the full declaration of ₹ 13 crores of undisclosed income before the due date i. e 31. 3. 2017 and 30. 9. 2017. To be precise, the petitioner deposited sum of ₹ 1, 46, 25, 000/on 21. 3. 2017 and further sum of ₹ 2, 92, 50, 000/on 25. 9. 2017. 5. Despite such payments, there was ofcourse, technical defect insofar as the petitioner had not paid the first installment in full before the due date which the petitioner attributed to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id within the stipulated dates and such declarations are being processed. With respect to one isolated case of the petitioner on account of revised declaration, an error crept in due to which the first installment though was paid within the time permitted, the amount fell short by a relatively small sum of ₹ 5, 62, 500/as against a total requirement of ₹ 1, 46, 25, 000/. There was also logic behind this error namely, the computation of payable tax and penalty was erroneously done on the basis of original declaration and not the revised declaration. As soon as the petitioner realised the error, remaining sum of ₹ 5, 62, 500/was paid. Such payment was also accepted. Further two installments were also deposited well within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt also do not argue that the Board does not have powers. In fact, while issuing the circular dated 28. 3. 2017, the Board did recognise existence of such powers. In the circular, the Board was attending to large number of requests for extension of time for depositing the installments arising out of various factors. While redressing some of the grievances the Board found it inappropriate to grant extension under certain categories such as, confusion about the due date, rush at the bank or any other reasons attributed to the declarant. The Board thus has wide powers to pass appropriate orders to remove genuine hardship either in individual case or any class of cases. Question is should the Board have exercised such powers in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
