9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a draft for the amount of tax payable and that draft was credited to the account of the Income-tax Department on March 27, 1998. Counsel submitted that the reason for the delay has now been set out in the affidavit filed with the petition, the reason being that the petitioner was in financial difficulties. That reason cannot be regarded as acceptable when the voluntary disclosure scheme is one which provided immunity for interest and penalties for the income that had been suppressed, subject to the terms of the scheme being complied with. Though the contents of the scheme were well known, the petitioner's declaration was filed but money was not deposited along with that declaration. The petitioner chose to take advantage of the 30 days p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and by reason of that accident, deposit could not be made and there was delay of one or two days. That decision was followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sardar Machhi Singh v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 58. The learned single judge of that court found on the facts before him that there was proper explanation for the delay as the last date on which the payment was required to be made was a bank holiday and the deposit was made two days later, the extent of the delay being one day after excluding the bank holiday. The Supreme Court declined to entertain the SLP against that judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Sardar Machhi Singh. Mere refusal to grant leave to appeal, however, cannot be construed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to have the delay condoned on the sole ground that the delay does not exceed three years. On the facts of this case, I do not find any warrant for holding that the authorities should have accepted the declaration, even though the requirements of the Voluntary Disclosure of the Income Scheme regarding the period within which the payment should have been made, had not been adhered to and no special reason which would warrant a very special concession being extended to the petitioner, had been put forth before the authorities. The reason put forth before this court is not one which can be regarded as sufficient in law to warrant the exercise of the discretionary power in favour of the petitioner even if it could be held that such discretio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
