Sadhana Rajendra Jain v. The Central Board of Direct Taxes  & Anr
[Citation -2017-LL-0829-13]

Citation 2017-LL-0829-13
Appellant Name Sadhana Rajendra Jain
Respondent Name The Central Board of Direct Taxes  & Anr.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 29/08/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags income declaration scheme • condonation of delay • delay in payment • levy of interest • prescribed time
Bot Summary: Let Mr. Walwe, who accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents, inform the Court as to whether the petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay in making payment of first installment under the Income Declaration Scheme of 2016 is disposed of or is still pending. The petitioner's application seeks condonation of delay in making payment of the first instalment under the Income Declaration Scheme of 2016. The petitioner relied upon the statement of facts in this petition to urge that the same are more or less admitted. After having heard both sides and perusing the petition and its annexures, we find that the petitioner relies upon the order under Section 119 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes is aware that it has received condonation petitions, including under Section 119 of the I.T. Act, 1961 from some of the declarants under the IDS. If they have paid the first instalment, either belatedly and after the prescribed date of 30 11 2016, or have not yet made the payment and have now made a request for Page 4 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2017 09:19:24 ::: suresh 901-WP-8066.2017.doc relaxing/extending the due date the Board has observed as under: 2. The petitioner in the writ petition has placed reliance on such exceptions carved out by even the Board's circular. In the circumstances, we direct that the application seeking condonation of delay, copy of which is annexed to the petition at Annexure A be considered in accordance with law and particularly in the light of the Board's circular/clarification which we have referred above.


suresh 901-WP-8066.2017.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8066 OF 2017 Sadhana Rajendra Jain Petitioner Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Anr. Respondents Mr. Rohan Deshpande for Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Walve for Respondents. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2017 P.C: 1. This petition was placed before us on 14 8 2017 but due to paucity of time it could not be taken up on that day. It was adjourned to 21 8 2017. 2. On 21 8 2017, we noted request of petitioner's Advocate and in presence of Mr. Walve passed following order: Page 1 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2017 09:19:24 ::: suresh 901-WP-8066.2017.doc 1. Let Mr. Walwe, who accepts notice on behalf of Respondents, inform Court as to whether petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay in making payment of first installment under Income Declaration Scheme of 2016 is disposed of or is still pending. application stated to be made, copy of which is at annexure to Petition, is dated 12 th December, 2016. Let Mr. Walve inform us on next date whether this application is disposed of or is still pending, depending upon which, we will issue requisite further directions for its consideration. 2. List matter on 29th August, 2017 for passing orders. 3. We specifically indicated to Mr. Walve that application, copy of which is at Annexure to petition, is dated 12 12 2016. There is no reason why Revenue cannot inform this Court at least by next date, which is today, whether this application is pending or disposed of and if it is still pending, when will it be taken up for consideration. 4. matter was specifically listed today and to be placed under caption For Passing Orders . 5. Once again Mr. Walve, appearing for Page 2 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2017 09:19:24 ::: suresh 901-WP-8066.2017.doc respondents, seeks time and by urging that matter is being looked into at highest level. Departmental Seniors/Superiors are yet to instruct him with regard to stand of Department/respondents and hence he be granted adjournment. 6. In light of earlier order and pendency of this petition for considerable period of time, we refuse adjournment. 7. petitioner's application seeks condonation of delay in making payment of first instalment under Income Declaration Scheme of 2016 (for short, IDS ). 8. petitioner relied upon statement of facts in this petition to urge that same are more or less admitted. 9. However, whether application under Section 119(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, I.T. Act, 1961 ) can be decided and whether that provision can be invoked is matter which is left to authorities. Page 3 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2017 09:19:24 ::: suresh 901-WP-8066.2017.doc 10. petitioner has placed before Court her version and stated that delay has occurred for bona fide reasons. There are no mala fides. respondent No.1 seeks to impinge and abridge powers available under statutory provision and namely, Section 119(2) of I.T. Act, 1961 to condone delay and prevent genuine hardship in fit cases. It is in these circumstances, request is made to issue direction for consideration of application in accordance with law. 11. After having heard both sides and perusing petition and its annexures, we find that petitioner relies upon order under Section 119 of I.T. Act, 1961. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes is aware that it has received condonation petitions, including under Section 119 of I.T. Act, 1961 from some of declarants under IDS. If they have paid (fully or partly) first instalment, either belatedly and after prescribed date of 30 11 2016, or have not yet made payment and have now made request for Page 4 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2017 09:19:24 ::: suresh 901-WP-8066.2017.doc relaxing/extending due date, then, Board has observed as under: 2. Under IDS, 2016, declarants were required to pay first instalment of twenty five per cent of total liability of tax, surcharge and penalty on or before 30th November, 2016. Considering fact that some of declarants under IDS Scheme faced technical difficulties in depositing first instalment at banks, vide Instruction No.2/2017 dated 16.01.2017 in F.No.142/8/2016 TPL (Part), Board has already issued directions to jurisdictional Principal Commissioners/Commissioners to accept payment of tax etc., payable under IDS in cases where remittance had been made through cheque, RTGS, electronic transfer etc. on or before 30th November, 2016, but same was credited by banks after 30 th November, 2016 but before 5th December, 2016. Further, to mitigate difficulties being faced by declarants regarding getting due credit for payments which were made within prescribed timeframe, guidelines for effecting correction in challan attributes have also been issued vide Order in F.No.SW/07/01/06/OLTAS INSTRUCTION/DIT(S) II dated 13.02.2017. Hence, hardships faced by declarants due to technical issues have already been redressed. 3. As far as remaining declarants are concerned, reasons for not making timely payments are stated as under (a) Personal/emergency reasons (b) Lack of liquidity Page 5 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2017 09:19:24 ::: suresh 901-WP-8066.2017.doc (c) Confusion about due date (d) Rush at banks (e) Any other reasons which are attributable to declarants 3.1 Board after considering matter, is of view that either condoning delay in making payment of first instalment by defaulters who have not paid any amount till now or further extending date beyond due date for regularising/facilitating payment of liabilities under IDS merely to accommodate few, especially when most of declarants had abided by prescribed scheduled date, does not merit consideration. It is noted that IDS does not provide for levy of interest on delayed payments, and hence, granting such condonation to defaulters may be discriminatory against declarants who made it point to adhere to prescribed time schedule. It is also observed that all declarants while filing declarations under IDS were well aware of payment schedule which they were required to follow. final liability also became crystallised once certificate in Form No.2 {r.w. Rule 4(3) of IDS Scheme} was issued by Pr.CIT/CIT to that effect by mid October, 2016. Thus, defaulting declarants who want condonation of delay on grounds mentioned above had sufficient time at their disposal to suitably organize their affairs so as to ensure timely payment of first instalment without need to wait till last minute. It is also relevant to point out here that provisions of Scheme were well publicised by Government through various steps such as media campaigns in visual, print & social media, organized meetings, awareness programmes etc. whereby declarants were also suitably informed of legal consequences arising from non compliance of Page 6 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2017 09:19:24 ::: suresh 901-WP-8066.2017.doc payment schedule. Hence, any delay by declarants on grounds mentioned above is solely attributable to lack of initiative or timely action on part of concerned declarants and hence does not justify condonation. 12. In para 3.2, Board concludes that while exercising its power under Section 119 of I.T. Act, 1961, it has been decided that granting application for condonation of delay in payment of instalment under IDS beyond prescribed due date or relaxation/extension of due date shall not be feasible in cases of delays due to circumstances mentioned in para 3 above. 13. At same time, in para 4, Board refers to circumstances over which declarant had absolutely no control. It is only in such cases concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax is authorised to deal with application on case to case basis, after verifying claim of declarant through relevant Bank statements/certificates, etc., and consider on merits condonation in appropriate cases provided amount payable Page 7 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2017 09:19:24 ::: suresh 901-WP-8066.2017.doc as per first instalment as well as second instalment is paid on 31 3 2017 by concerned declarant. 14. petitioner in writ petition has placed reliance on such exceptions carved out by even Board's circular. 15. In circumstances, we direct that application seeking condonation of delay, copy of which is annexed to petition at Annexure (page 22) be considered in accordance with law and particularly in light of Board's circular/clarification which we have referred above. application be considered in accordance with law on its own merits as expeditiously as possible and within period of six weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of petitioner's application. writ petition is disposed of in above terms and directions. No costs. (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Page 8 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2017 09:19:24 ::: SadhanaRajendraJain v. TheCentralBoardofDirectTaxes &Anr
Report Error