9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns to the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16. The advance tax of ₹ 1,10,000/- was paid by him for the assessment year 2013-14. Admittedly, there was no regular assessment for the said year, whereby the said advance tax could have been adjusted. Therefore, there is no logic or rationale in denying the petitioner credit of this amount while computing the amount payable by him under the IDS. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 06.02.2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Hyderabad, rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioner under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The said declaration shall be considered afresh by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax @ 30% on undisclosed income along with surcharge and penalty @ 25% on the tax payable. As per Section 187 thereof, read with Notification No.S.O.2476(E) dated 20.07.2016, the tax, surcharge and penalty were to be paid in three installments between 30.11.2016 and 30.09.2017. 3. In terms of the IDS, the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of ₹ 18,44,418/- towards tax, surcharge and penalty on the undisclosed income declared by him. In that regard, he claimed credit of a sum of ₹ 12,11,611/-, being his tax deducted at source (TDS). He also claimed credit of a sum of ₹ 1,10,000/-, being the advance tax/prepaid tax paid by him for the assessment year 2013-14. After adjusting the aforestated credits, he paid th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome declared by him under the IDS. She relied upon Section 219 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides for credit for advance tax being given in the case of regular assessment, which would be either under Section 143(3) or Section 144 thereof. She asserted that the advance tax paid by the petitioner could not be adjusted while computing the payments made under the IDS. 6. An additional counter-affidavit was thereafter filed by the successor Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Hyderabad, on 06.09.2019. This additional counter-affidavit was filed without separately seeking the leave of this Court. Therein, he stated that certain important contentions were not raised in the counter-affidavit filed earlier and sought per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any, in respect of the income declared should be allowed. The answer to this was in the positive and to the effect that credit for TDS should be allowed in those cases where the related income was declared under the IDS and credit for the tax had not already been claimed in the return of income filed for any assessment year. There is also no dispute that if the amount paid by the petitioner for the assessment year 2013-14, being a sum of ₹ 1,10,000/- is adjusted, the payments made by him on 21.11.2016 (₹ 1,50,000/-), 28.03.2017 (₹ 1,50,000/-) and 27.09.2017 (₹ 2,22,807/-) would be sufficient to discharge his liability in respect of the tax, surcharge and penalty payable by him towards his undisclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment year 2013-14, whereby the petitioner could have paid tax under Minor Head - 400. When there was no such regular assessment, the payment made by the petitioner cannot be appropriated under that head merely because he made a mistake in mentioning the number. The contention of the Income Tax authorities in this regard is therefore liable to be rejected even on merits. 11. Treating the payment of ₹ 1,10,000/- made by the petitioner as one towards advance tax, the question that arises is whether the same could have been adjusted against the payment to be made by him towards tax, surcharge and penalty under the IDS. 12. This very aspect fell for consideration before a Division Bench of the Delhi Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the TDS relevant for the period covered by the declaration filed under the IDS is given credit as per the CBDT s clarification itself, there is no logic as to why advance tax paid for the very same period, which has not been given credit to earlier, should not be adjusted against the amount payable under the IDS. In the case on hand, the declaration of the petitioner pertains to the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16. The advance tax of ₹ 1,10,000/- was paid by him for the assessment year 2013-14. Admittedly, there was no regular assessment for the said year, whereby the said advance tax could have been adjusted. Therefore, there is no logic or rationale in denying the petitioner credit of this amount while computing the amount payab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
