TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee is required to make payment of the required amount (which is stated to be around 30 per cent. of the full assessment) within a period of thirty days after the required amount is communicated to the assessee. In the event the amount is so paid it is accepted as a one time full settlement. In the instant case, the petitioner was communicated that under the said scheme, his liability will be Rs.2,18,451. This intimation was given to him on December 10, 1998. The last date for making payment was January 9, 1999. On January 9, 1999, the petitioner went to the Income-tax Department to deposit the amount only to learn that the payment is to be made in a nationalised bank. January 9, 1999, was Saturday and, therefore, he made the payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by order, determine the amount payable by the declarant in accordance with the provisions of this scheme and grant a certificate in such form as may be prescribed to the declarant setting forth therein the particulars of the tax arrear and the sum payable after such determination towards full and final settlement of tax arrears: Provided that where any material particular furnished in the declaration is found to be false, by the designated authority at any stage, it shall be presumed as if the declaration was never made and all the consequences under the direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment under which the proceedings against the declarant are or were pending shall be deemed to have been revived: Provided further that the desi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was followed by a learned single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sardar Machhi Singh v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 58, which was a matter arising out of this very section of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, with which we are concerned in the present matter. In that case, the payment was to be made by March 25, 1999, which was a bank holiday. The next day was working day but the assessee made the payment on the subsequent day, i.e., on March 27, 1999. Relying on the judgment in Smt. Laxmi Mittal's case [1999] 238 ITR 97 (P H), the Madhya Pradesh High Court entertained the petition and directed the Commissioner of Income-tax to pass appropriate order accepting the decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Bhattad, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that apart from the fact that the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sardar Machhi Singh v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 58, is left undisturbed by the apex court, it is an established position that in the event of an ambiguity the provisions of a taxing statute are normally construed liberally in favour of the assessee. He points out that if a provision of a taxing statute can be reasonably interpreted in two ways, that interpretation which is favourable to the assessee, has got to be accepted. He relies upon the judgments of the apex court in CIT v. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 236 and CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 in this behalf. Mr. Anand Jai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Act, 1963, the provisions of which are now applicable to all proceedings, a provision like Explanation 1 to section 132 is superfluous and no argument can be based on it." Mr. Bhattad, therefore, submits that the concept of sufficient cause has to be permitted to explain this delay of two days. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by both counsel. The provisions of section 90(2) of the Scheme undoubtedly require the declarant to make the payment within thirty days from the passing of the order made by the designated authority. However, the said section states that the declarant shall pay the amount accordingly. The Scheme is undoubtedly for the benefit of the assessee who wants a one-time settlement. At the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igent assessees, yet it cannot be read as to exclude genuine difficulties or explanation. In the present case, the petitioner-assessee has his own explanation, that by mistake he went to the Income-tax Office on Saturday and immediately on Monday he has made the payment in the bank. It is true that the petitioner was assessed to income-tax for a number of years earlier. Yet it is possible that with such a special scheme an assessee could be in doubt as to where the payment is to be made. In our view, the explanation given by the petitioner, cannot be rejected, particularly when immediately on the next working day he has made the payment in a nationalised bank. The provision of section 90 will have to be read flexibly in the interest of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
