9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating its power under Section 119(2). It is, in fact, in exercise of such powers that the board took certain conscious decisions. It was not argued before us that the decision of the board was arbitrary or unreasonable so as to be struck down in as opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In any case, when the legislature frames a special Scheme such as the present one, giving certain concession to the Assesses who had till then not declared their incomes truly and fully, legislature can always lay down its limits of the concession to be granted. As correctly considered by the CBDT in its impugned order dated 16th October, 2017, such concession and excess indulgence in such cases, could have demotivating effect on honest tax payers making regular and prompt tax deposit. This Court in SADHANA RAJENDRA JAIN VERSUS THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ANOTHER [2017 (9) TMI 666 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has given any directions to the board to decide the matter in a particular fashion. The Court merely required the board to decide the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay, particularly, bearing in mind the Circular dated 28th March, 2017. The observations of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble. (iii) Since there was no response to this application of the Petitioner by the CBDT, Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8066 of 2017 which was disposed of by an order dated 29th August,2017. The Court directed that the application of the Petitioner be considered in accordance with law and in particular, in light of the Circular of the CBDT dated 28th March, 2017. Pursuant to said directions of the Court, the CBDT passed the order on 16th October, 2017. By the said order, the application of the Petitioner for condonation of delay, was rejected. Petitioner's contention that her case is covered under the Circular dated 28th March, 2017, was rejected. It was observed that IDS was the opportunity provided by the Government to non-compliant tax payers to come clean after paying tax at the higher rate. Granting any further relaxation under the IDS, would demotivate the honest tax payers who are paying taxes promptly. Under the circumstances, the board was of the opinion that no relaxation in the payment schedule provided under the IDS can be granted. It was also stated that this would be in consonance with the Circular dated 28th March, 2017 in whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to the proceedings under the said Scheme. The applicability of Section 119 of the Act, thus, was specifically retained in relation to the provisions of the Scheme. 7. It was in this context that the CBDT had issued its Circular dated 28th March, 2017. Such Circular aimed to obviate certain difficulties faced by the Assesses in depositing first installment. Circular provided for accepting late payment of the first installment in cases where the remittance was made through cheque, RTGS and electronic transfer etc. before 30th November, 2016 but the same was credited by the Bank after the said date but before 5th December, 2016. Thus, the CBDT recognized the limited area where though the payment was made within time, but the bank had not credited the same in the Government revenue. Under such circumstances, the time would be relaxed in favour of the declarant. While doing so, the CBDT also considered the cases of individual hardship for reasons such as personal reasons or emergency reasons, lack of liquidity etc. The board, however, took a conscious decision not to grant any extension in said situations. Relevant portion of the board Circular, reads as under: 3. As far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date shall not be feasible in cases of delays due to circumstances mentioned in Para 3 above. 4. However, some instances have been brought to the notice where the declarant effected the full payment within the due date and same was also acknowledged by the bank, but it was intimated later by the bank that fund transfer did not materialize within the prescribed time frame and the money was either returned back to the declarant or credited to Govt. A/c after 5th December, 2016. Such instances clearly refer to the circumstances over which the declarant had absolutely no control. Only, in such cases, the concerned Pr.CIT/CIT is hereby authorized to deal with the applications on a case to case basis after verifying the claim of the declarant through the relevant bank statements/ certificates etc. and consider on merits the condonation in appropriate cases provided the amount payable as per the first installment as well as second installment is paid by 31st March, 2017 by the concerned declarant. 8. Reading of the board Circular, it would clearly emerge that while providing for a limited window, in cases where payments were made through banking channels but the deposit was mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
