TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 23B - Held that:- the default of the assessee to remit amounts on or before the last date stipulated, dis-entitles the assessee, without anything more from settling its arrears under the scheme. Neither a notice nor a revocation order is contemplated on default made by the assessee to pay the amounts stipulated before the last date notified. There is absolutely no infirmity, in the assessing officer having declined the petitioner's continuance under the Amnesty Scheme which is a consequence of the petitioners default. The petitioner cannot claim any further eligibility under the Amnesty Scheme especially since the period is over, and there can definitely be no adjustment under one year and revocation in the others. Therefore the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese years was above ₹ 1 crore; as per the order on amnesty, the petitioner could pay the principal amount along with interest of around ₹ 12 lakhs to 13 lakhs; for each of the years, to satisfy the dues under the Scheme. The petitioner admittedly, submitted cheques as evident from exhibits P3, P3(a) and P3(b). Two cheques bearing Nos. 345853 and 345855 were presented at first in random, as can be expected of the Department which deals with innumerable such transactions. These two cheques were honoured; but all the other cheques were dishonoured. The petitioner's contention is that the said two cheques were, those given for two different assessment years and if the assessing authority had proceeded to send the cheques for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amnesty showing different amounts for different years. In fact, the cheques were submitted to the taxation authorities on March 31, 2014, the last date for depositing the amounts as per the scheme. Further more, the provision, section 23B, speaks of settling arrears of tax due prior to March 31, 2005; and not piece-meal settlement for one single assessment year. What the Scheme did provide for is settlement of arrears due prior to March 31, 2005 and not for each or any of the assessment years. On default, the petitioner claims; what he was not entitled to as per section 23B and could not have applied for. Further contention made is, with respect to sub-section (6) of section 23B, which mandates that the revocation order ought to be is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated, dis-entitles the assessee, without anything more from settling its arrears under the scheme. Neither a notice nor a revocation order is contemplated on default made by the assessee to pay the amounts stipulated before the last date notified. The reasoning hence leads this court to the irrefutable conclusion that there is absolutely no infirmity, in the assessing officer having declined the petitioner's continuance under the Amnesty Scheme which is a consequence of the petitioners default. The petitioner cannot claim any further eligibility under the Amnesty Scheme especially since the period is over, and there can definitely be no adjustment under one year and revocation in the others. The learned counsel for the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C 226 also found a Kar Vivid Samadhan Scheme to be a complete code in itself and statutory in character and exhaustive of matter dealt with therein (sic). Though liberal construction was held to be the norm, in its implementation, extension beyond the conditions prescribed under the Scheme was found to be impermissible. The petitioner's claims are not valid under the provisions of section 23B. This court also concludes that the appropriation under section 55C cannot in any manner be assailed, since that is a statutory compulsion, not open for debate or adjudication. In Hemalatha Gargya [2003] 259 ITR 1 (SC); [2003] 9 SCC 510 a payment beyond time was found to be liable to adjustment or entitled for refund as the law provides. Appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
