Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1999 (10) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... k, under section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1997, whereby the declaration filed by the petitioner under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, was rejected. The petitioner is doing business in timber and is a partner in the firm called Public Timber Traders, Mathura Road, Faridabad. He is assessed to income-tax in Ward No. 1 at Faridabad in the State of Haryana. The Government of India by the Finance Act, 1997, introduced a scheme called the "Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997" (for short "the Scheme"). It is contained in Chapter-IV of the Finance Act consisting of sections 62 to 78 (both inclusive). The purpose of introducing the scheme is to mobilise and channelise funds into priority sectors of the economy and to offe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the tax within three months from the date of filing of the declaration with simple interest at the rate of two per cent. for every month or part of a month comprised in the period beginning from the date of filing the declaration and ending on the date of payment of such tax and file the proof of such payment within the said period of three months. (2) If the declarant fails to pay the tax in respect of the voluntarily disclosed income before the expiry of three months from the date of filing of the declaration, the declaration filed by him shall be deemed never to have been made under this Scheme." Under this provision the declaration could be filed without paying the tax and in that event the declarant was required to pay tax within .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... delay could not be condoned in view of section 67(2) of the Finance Act and, therefore, by order dated July 21, 1998, the declaration was deemed never to have been made under the scheme. Hence, the present petition. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the delay in depositing the tax was only of one day and, therefore, the Commissioner ought to have condoned the same since the Revenue had suffered no loss and the interest for the delayed period had also been deposited. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court in Smt. Laxmi Mittal v. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 97. Shri R. P. Sawhney, learned senior counsel for the Department, on the other hand, strenuously urged that the scheme does not give any power .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ithin its four corners and not otherwise. It is true that the declaration could be made on or before December 31, 1997, and where a person makes a declaration on December 31, 1997, he could deposit the tax simultaneously with the declaration or within three months up to March 31, 1998, but for those who filed the declaration earlier, the period of three months would be counted from the date of declaration and not from December 31, 1997. In other words, the sine qua non for computing the period of three months for depositing the tax is the date of actual filing the declaration and not the last date permissible for filing such a declaration. No doubt, this court in Laxmi Mittal's case [1999] 238 ITR 97 (P H) took a view that the Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner therein had given an explanation for her failure to make deposit within three months as she had met with an accident and that explanation was accepted by the Bench. In the case before us, the petitioner did not furnish any explanation whatsoever before the Commissioner when his representative appeared before the latter on May 6, 1998, and May 12, 1998, and sought condonation of delay only because it was only of one day. Why that delay occurred was not explained. Therefore, even if we follow the dictum in Laxmi Mittal's case [1999] 238 ITR 97 (P H) the declaration filed by the petitioner had to be rejected on account of want of any explanation for the delay. No doubt, the petitioner has offered some explanation in his writ petition bu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates