9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is only on account of the bank not accepting the deposit that form 2 could not be got counter signed with an acknowledgment from the bank and not be submitted by the petitioner to the respondent-Department. In the peculiar nature of the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made all efforts to try and comply with the requirement of the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Deposit Scheme. In such a situation, 66 per cent. of the compliance having been done, the petitioner ought not to be denied the benefit of the scheme more so that the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a submission that he is still willing to deposit the amount for a period of four years from today and would not claim any interest on the same. Petition stands allowed. - Writ Petition No. 104866 of 2018 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 12-11-2021 - Suraj Govindaraj J. For the Petitioner : H. R. Kambiyavar , M/S. K. R. Prasad Patri , Patri S. K. and Ashok A. Kulkarni , Advocates For the Respondent Nos. 1 And 2 : Y. V. Raviraj , Advocate For the Respondent No. 3 : M. B. Kanavi , Standing Counsel and Narayan V. Yaji , Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 4 An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4059(E), dated December 16, 2016 under section 199C(1) of Chapter IX-A of Act No. 48 of 2016 ([2016] 389 ITR (St.) 63 ). 2. On December 21, 2016, office of the Police Department seized an amount of ₹ 29,98,000 from the employee of the petitioner. The said amount was taken over by the Income-tax Department who proceeded in the matter by issuing summons under section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, recorded a statement on December 26, 2016. Similar statements were recorded from several other persons who are stated to be involved in the said transaction or otherwise. 3. The petitioner wished to avail of the benefit under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Deposit Scheme, 2016 (PMGK Scheme), which had been then introduced more particularly providing that in the event of undisclosed income being declared the same could be compounded by making payment of certain tax amount, cess and penalty which amount once collected were to be used for the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Deposit Scheme. 4. In terms of section 199D of the Act, the unclosed income would be chargeable to tax at the rate of 33 per cent., a surcharge at 33 per cent. on the tax and further an amount of 10 per cent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or relief as aforementioned. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the scheme when the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit the amount. The amount could not be deposited solely on account of the fact that the first bank that the petitioner went to was not authorised to collect the money and the second bank that the petitioner went to could not accept the money since the banking hours had closed. 12. It is further contended that an amount of ₹ 15,00,000 has already been appropriated towards, tax, surcharge and penalty in terms of sections 199D and 199E, when there is such a substantial compliance made by the petitioner, the alleged non-compliance of the requirement of section 199F cannot be a ground for disentitling the petitioner of the benefit. More so, when the respondent-authorities having in their possession, an amount double the amount required to be deposited under section 199F. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is even as on today ready to deposit the amount with the authorities to be adjusted. The period of deposit under section 199F can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermined, the petitioner has complied with 66 per cent. of the requirement leaving a balance of 33 per cent. to be complied with. Which 33 per cent. also the petitioner sought to comply with by depositing with the bank but was unable to do so for the reasons aforesaid which are not in dispute. 18. It is also not in dispute that the respondent-Department continues to have within its possession a sum of ₹ 14.98 lakhs. 19. It is an oft repeated and oft stated fact that the Income-tax Act, the provision thereunder, the rules, circulars, notification issued thereunder are very burdensome and many a time are not assessee friendly. 20. In the present matter, the scheme could have been simplified inasmuch as from and out of the undisclosed amount seized, the amount required to be adjusted under sections 199D, 199E and 199F could have been so adjusted and the balance returned to the assessee as long as the assessee wished to avail of the benefit of the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Deposit Scheme. Instead of doing so, the scheme is being made burdensome in as much as the amount has been seized and thereafter, the assessee would be required to make payment of tax, surcharge and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
