9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der : The petitioner had made a declaration on December 30, 1997, to the effect that it was having undisclosed income which it wanted to disclose under a scheme known as the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme of 1997 (VDIS). As per the provisions of section 67 of the Finance Act, 1997, the petitioner had to make payment of tax payable on the amount of income disclosed within a period of three months from the date of filing of the declaration. The case of the petitioner is that though the tax payable under the said scheme was paid on March 30, 1998, and the petitioner-company was entitled to a certificate under the provisions of section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1997, from the respondent, the petitioner-company was not granted the certi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to hereinabove with the case of the petitioner, it is very clear that the petitioner ought to have been issued a certificate under the provisions of section 68(2) of the Act. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-Department has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to certificate under the provisions of section 68(2) of the Act for the reason that the petitioner had not deposited the amount of tax within 90 days but the tax was paid on the 91st day as stated in para 2 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent. He has also relied upon a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated September 3, 1998, and more particularly clauses II and IV of the said circular and has submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act cannot hold the field and, therefore, we do not agree with the submission of the learned advocate appearing for the respondent that the amount of tax ought to have been paid within 90 days. Circular No. 755, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and referred to hereinabove, which is clarificatory in nature, elucidates the position. Looking to the said illustration, one cannot say that the petitioner-assessee has not made payment of tax within the period prescribed. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the amount of tax was required to be paid within three months from the date of the declaration and therefore, the respondent cannot insist upon payment of tax within 90 days as submitted by the learned advocate for the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
