TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the petitioner credit of this amount while computing the amount payable by him under the Income Declaration Scheme. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned pro- ceedings dated February 6, 2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6, Hyderabad, rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioner under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The said declaration shall be considered afresh by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6, Hyderabad, duly giving credit not only to the tax deducted at source but also to the advance tax paid by the petitioner for the assessment year 2013- 14. - Writ Petition No. 24682 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2019 - Sanjay Kumar And K. Lakshman JJ. For the Petitioner : A. V. A. Siva Kartikeya For the Respondents : K. Raji Reddy , Senior Standing Counsel, Income-tax Department JUDGMENT SANJAY KUMAR J. - Challenge in this writ petition is to the proceedings dated February 6, 2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income- tax-6, Hyderabad, the first respondent, whereby the declaration filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty payable under section 185 thereof, in respect of his undisclosed income, were payable by the petitioner in terms of his decla- ration and proof of such payment was required to be furnished in Form 3. According to him, there was, no provision in the Income Declaration Scheme enabling credit being given to prepaid taxes. He asserted that the advance tax paid by the petitioner could not be adjusted against the tax, surcharge and penalty payable under the Income Declaration Scheme. He pointed out that the petitioner had not filed his return of income for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 and therefore, the advance tax paid by him could not be given credit while computing his liability in respect of the undisclosed income declared by him under the Income Declaration Scheme. He relied upon section 219 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides for credit for advance tax being given in the case of regular assess- ment, which would be either under section 143(3) or section 144 thereof. He asserted that the advance tax paid by the petitioner could not be adjusted while computing the payments made under the Income Decla- ration Scheme. 6. An additional cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent year. There is also no dispute that if the amount paid by the petitioner for the assessment year 2013-14, being a sum of ₹ 1,10,000 is adjusted, the payments made by him on November 21, 2016 (₹ 1,50,000), March 28, 2017 (₹ 1,50,000) and September 27, 2017 (₹ 2,22,807) would be sufficient to discharge, his liability in respect of the tax, surcharge and penalty payable by him towards his undisclosed income declared under the Income Declaration Scheme. The only issue, is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek adjustment in this regard of the sum of ₹ 1,10,000 paid by him for the assessment year 2013-14. 9. In so far as the payment of ₹ 1,10,000 for the assessment year 2013-14 is concerned, Sri A. V. A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel, does not dispute the fact that it was remitted by the petitioner under the wrong head, viz., Minor Head-400, which pertains to tax on regular assessment instead of Minor Head-100, which pertains to advance tax. Significantly, the impugned proceedings dated February 6, 2018 do not proceed on the strength of this aspect for refusing to give credit for the sum of ₹ 1,10,000 paid by the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Division Bench observed that such a clarification precluded any meaningful argument being advanced by the Revenue that advance tax payments relative to the assess- ment year covered by the declaration could not be taken into consideration as payments under the scheme and for the purpose of availing of the ben- efits of the scheme. The Income-tax authorities were accordingly directed to ensure that the payments and declarations of the petitioner therein were processed in accordance with the scheme. SLP (Civil) Diary No. 33000 of 2017 filed by the Income-tax authorities against the aforestated judgment of the Delhi High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court on January 29, 2018. 13. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court. Once the tax deducted at source relevant for the period covered by the declaration filed under the Income Declaration Scheme is given credit as per the Central Board of Direct Taxes' clarification itself, there is no logic as to why advance tax paid for the very same period, which has not been given credit to earlier, should not be adjusted against the amount payable under the Income Declaration Scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
