9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment years only on 23.01.1998. According to the petitioner, he could not file the above IT returns within the prescribed time because certificates under Section 203 of Income Tax Act vide form No.16 which were issued by the employer only on 24.06.1993, 31.05.1994, 03.05.1995, 13.05.1996 and 11.07.1997 for the assessment year 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996- 97 and 1997-98 respectively. According to the petitioner the advance tax had already been paid for the aforesaid assessment year well before the prescribed due dates by the employer. In these returns, the petitioner has shown his regular income from salary, interest, dividends and capital gains. 2. The Central Government introduced the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "VDIS") by introducing CHAPTER IV comprising sections 62 to 78 in the Finance Act, 1997. Under the VDIS all persons were permitted to submit income tax return between the period the date of commencement of scheme till 31st day of December 1997 in respect of any income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax for any assessment year, firstly- for which he has failed to furnish a return, secondly-which he has failed to disclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the returns of the AY 1996-97and1997-98 under Section 143 (1) (4) of the Income Tax Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection, the petitioner preferred two revisions for both the assessment years the AY 1996- 97and1997-98 before the Commissioner of Income Tax on two grounds, firstly; that he could not file the income tax return before the Income Tax Officer in time due to circumstances beyond his control, secondly, he is entitled to refund of Rs. 45,000/- as he had paid the Income-tax under VDIS-1997 and again payment of tax on the said income does not arise, therefore assessment be revised for the assessment of the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 for granting the refund of Rs. 45,000/- and 92,064/- respectively. Vide common order dated 29.03.2001, the Commissioner of Income Tax Indore has dismissed both the revision on the ground that the petitioner being assessee was not eligible for basis exemption under query No.25 of VDIS as he is trying to take benefit under the Income Tax as well as VDIS which is not permissible. It has also been held that the assessee i.e. petitioner is an employee of United India Insurance Company, he gave the incorrect reason that there was a delay i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25 while dismissing the revision. Section 237 of the Income Tax Act clearly provides that where the advance tax paid by the assessee exceeds the amount with which he is chargeable for that year shall be entitled to refund, therefore by deducting the income disclosed in the VDIS from his total income, no liability to pay the income tax would come on the petitioner, hence, tax paid as advance tax is liable to be refunded. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the tax paid under VDIS is not a tax paid under I.T. Act, therefore, tax deducted at source and/ or any other mode of payment of Tax under Section IT Act cannot be used to disclose the obligation to pay the tax under VDIS on the disclosure of undisclosed income. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Earnest Business Services (P) Ltd. And another Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax and other reported (2017) 294 CTR (Bombay) 80. 10. Learned counsel for the Income-tax/respondent has contended that the petitioner initially did not file the IT returns for the assessment year 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997 -98 well wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance with the provision of section 65 in respect of any income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act for any assessment year between the date of commencement of scheme till 31 December 1997, firstly, for which he has failed to furnish a return under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, secondly, which he has failed to disclose in a return of income furnished by him under the Income Tax Act before the date of commencement of this scheme and Thirdly, which has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of such person to make a return. When the petitioner submitted a declaration under the VDIS, there was no income disclosure by way of IT returns filed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act. Despite anything contained in the Income Tax Act, income tax shall be charged @ 30% in respect of income so disclosed and income shall be called as voluntary disclose income and if declarant being a person other than company. According to the petitioner, he disclosed his income for the assessment year 1996-97 and 1997-98 and paid the income tax @ 30% within time. 12. Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1997 provides that the amount of the voluntarily disclosed income shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility 'Nil' to claim the refund of Rs.49003/-. This is not the intention of the VDIS. The voluntarily disclosed income is not liable to be included with regular income declared in the return under section 139 as tax paid under VDIS is not liable to be refunded at any cost. The income tax return submitted under Section 139 is not liable to be reopened after availing of the VDIS. The source of income shown for voluntary disclose income and income source shown in the return under Section 139 is altogether different. Under Section 64 of the Finance Act only those persons are entitled to give declaration in respect of income chargeable under the tax under the Income Tax Act for any assessment year, firstly for which he has failed to furnish return under Section 139, secondly, which he has failed to disclose in a return of income furnished by him under the Income Tax Act before the date of commencement of the scheme, thirdly, which has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure. As per clause sub-clause (a), in this case, the petitioner did not furnish any return under Section 139 before 31.12.1997, therefore, in voluntarily disclosed income, he ought to have disclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
