TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the return under Section 139 is altogether different. Under Section 64 of the Finance Act only those persons are entitled to give declaration in respect of income chargeable under the tax under the Income Tax Act for any assessment year, firstly for which he has failed to furnish return u/s 139, secondly, which he has failed to disclose in a return of income furnished by him under the Income Tax Act before the date of commencement of the scheme, thirdly, which has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure. As per clause sub-clause (a), in this case, the petitioner did not furnish any return under Section 139 before 31.12.1997, therefore, in voluntarily disclosed income, he ought to have disclosed his all income from all the sources because till 31.12.1997, he did not disclose his any of the income by submitting the return under Section 139. He submitted the return under section 139, after 31.12.1997 i.e. 23.01.1998 to bring his case within clause 64 (1) (b). As submitted belated IT returns under section 139 but as per the requirement of section 64 (1)(b) that ought to have been filed before the date of commencement of the scheme. Since he did not submit any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996- 97 and 1997-98 respectively. According to the petitioner the advance tax had already been paid for the aforesaid assessment year well before the prescribed due dates by the employer. In these returns, the petitioner has shown his regular income from salary, interest, dividends and capital gains. 2. The Central Government introduced the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as VDIS ) by introducing CHAPTER IV comprising sections 62 to 78 in the Finance Act, 1997. Under the VDIS all persons were permitted to submit income tax return between the period the date of commencement of scheme till 31st day of December 1997 in respect of any income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax for any assessment year, firstly- for which he has failed to furnish a return, secondlywhich he has failed to disclose in a return of income tax furnished by him, thirdly, which has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of such person to make a return under the income tax Act. Under Section 65 of Finance Act, 1997, a declaration under subsection 64 shall be made to the Commissioner of IT in the prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L VALUE OF ASSETS DISCLSOE D UNDER VDIS 157410 181823 254955 334234 446525 4. In the IT returns for the assessment year 1996-97 and 1997-98, the petitioner has deducted the income disclosed in VDIS in his total income and assesses the income tax on balance amount ₹ 40,000/- i.e. and tax liability as 'Nil'. The Income Tax Officer has rejected the returns of the AY 1996-97and1997-98 under Section 143 (1) (4) of the Income Tax Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection, the petitioner preferred two revisions for both the assessment years the AY 1996- 97and1997-98 before the Commissioner of Income Tax on two grounds, firstly; that he could not file the income tax return before the Income Tax Officer in time due to circumstances beyond his control, secondly, he is entitled to refund of ₹ 45,000/- as he had paid the Income-tax under VDIS-1997 and again payment of tax on the said income does not arise, therefore assessment be revised for the assessment of the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 for granting the refund of ₹ 45, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved in this case, no tax was payable on the income of ₹ 40,000/- claimed refund of the amount of ₹ 49,003/- being the advance tax and TDS, likewise ₹ 92,064/- for the assessment year 1997-98. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that despite sending intimation under Section 143(1) (a) of Income-tax, the refund has wrongly declined by Commissioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned Commissioner of IT has wrongly relied on the answer to query No.25 while dismissing the revision. Section 237 of the Income Tax Act clearly provides that where the advance tax paid by the assessee exceeds the amount with which he is chargeable for that year shall be entitled to refund, therefore by deducting the income disclosed in the VDIS from his total income, no liability to pay the income tax would come on the petitioner, hence, tax paid as advance tax is liable to be refunded. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the tax paid under VDIS is not a tax paid under I.T. Act, therefore, tax deducted at source and/ or any other mode of payment of Tax under Section IT Act cannot be used to disclose the obl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no substance in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgment cited by the learned counsels. 11. The Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS) was introduced by way of the Finance Act, 1997. Section (a) defines ''declarant'' and according to which a person making the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 64of Finance Act, 1997 which enables any person to make the declaration in accordance with the provision of section 65 in respect of any income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act for any assessment year between the date of commencement of scheme till 31 December 1997, firstly, for which he has failed to furnish a return under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, secondly, which he has failed to disclose in a return of income furnished by him under the Income Tax Act before the date of commencement of this scheme and Thirdly, which has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of such person to make a return. When the petitioner submitted a declaration under the VDIS, there was no income disclosure by way of IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 139 on 23.01.1998 and deducted income so disclosed in VDIS i.e. voluntary disclose income. For the assessment year 1993-94 to 1997-98, he has declared his income ₹ 13,74,947/- with the description of assets i.e. cash, debtor, share and bank account and paid income tax ₹ 4,12,482/- on 26.12.1997. Thereafter, he submitted return for those two assessments years 1996-97 and 1997-98 by declaring income from salary, NSC, Bank, Unit Trust, Mutual fund etc ₹ 3,74,234/- and deducted the income under VDIS and claimed tax liability 'Nil' to claim the refund of ₹ 49003/-. This is not the intention of the VDIS. The voluntarily disclosed income is not liable to be included with regular income declared in the return under section 139 as tax paid under VDIS is not liable to be refunded at any cost. The income tax return submitted under Section 139 is not liable to be reopened after availing of the VDIS. The source of income shown for voluntary disclose income and income source shown in the return under Section 139 is altogether different. Under Section 64 of the Finance Act only those persons are entitled to give declaration in respect of income chargeabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
