9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner has approached the authority under the provisions of 'The Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016' as is seen Ext.P4 for payment of 25% of the penalty. The declarations filed by the petitioner is produced as Exts.P5 and P6. The proceedings of the income tax authority in deciding on 25% of the penalty is seen from Exts.P7 and P8. However, later the orders issued at Exts.P7 and P8 were withdrawn by Exts.P9 and P10 finding that the penalty imposed under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act were not linked to the assessment proceedings. The petitioner challenges the said orders. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department relies on Ext.P11 clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 3. The is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioners had offered to pay 25% of the mandatory penalties that were imposed on them. The contention of the Department is essentially that, inasmuch as there is a reference to a payment of tax and interest payable on the total income finally determined, along with 25% of the minimum penalty leviable, the Scheme must be intended to cover only such penalties as have been imposed on an assessee along with the assessment order. The clarification of the CBDT in the context of a penalty order under Section 271(C) or 271 (C) (A) of the Income Tax Act also suggests that, such penalties, as are not linked to assessment proceedings, would not be covered under the Scheme. On an overall consideration of the Scheme, however, I do not see any sco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it petition, where the amnesty is sought only in respect of a penalty that is imposed under the Income tax Act. Thus, I find that, the reasons stated in Exts.P8, P9 and P10 intimations served on the petitioners cannot be legally sustained to deny the petitioners the benefit of Ext.P4 Amnesty Scheme. 5. Going by the authoritative pronouncement, this Court is of the opinion that, there is no scope for restricting the interpretation given to the scheme and that the penalty as levied under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act also could be settled under the Scheme. Hence, Exts.P9 and P10 are set aside. In such circumstance, the first respondent shall process the application on the basis of interpretation as laid down by this Court in the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
