9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner benefits under the VsV Act. 3. On 29.01.2021, the Petitioner filed a declaration under the VsV Act in Form 1 inter alia, giving particulars of tax arrears and amounts payable in respect of the pending Income Tax dispute for Assessment Year 2017-18. Since the outstanding tax demand was of Rs. 35,94,164/- the amount under the VsV Act was computed at Rs. 14,04,620/- after adjustment of the amount of Rs, 8,14,000/- which the Petitioner already paid to the revenue. 4. On 25.02.2021, Form 3 was issued by the Respondents, determining amounts payable at Rs. 16,97,010/- (if paid on or before 31.03.2021) and Rs. 19,48,111/-(if paid after 31.03.2021). 5. The Petitioner pointed out that the above figures were patently erroneous, and therefore, the Petitioner approached the Respondents to get the errors corrected. After numerous follow-ups by the Petitioner, the Respondents acknowledged their error and assured the Petitioner that the fresh Form 3 under the VsV Act would be issued to the Petitioner. 6. The Petitioner has pleaded that in June 2021 or thereabouts, the Respondents closed their old website and migrated to a new website. The Petitioner has pleaded that, as a result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.10.2021 has also lapsed." 12. The Petitioner has contended that she had, on 12.10.2021, already filed Form 4, which the Respondents even acknowledged. Therefore, the statement in the communication dated 22.01.2022 was factually erroneous. The Petitioner, therefore, addressed a communication dated 25.01.2022, pointing out that she had made the demanded payments within a few days of the receipt of revised Form 3. 13. The Petitioner contended that despite the above communication, along with proof of acknowledgement of amounts along with Form 4 on 12.10.2021, the Petitioner was forced to make numerous follow-ups. In February 2023 or thereabouts, the Petitioner claims that her authorised representative was informed that communication dated 01.04.2022 was posted in her e-filing account. 14. Accordingly, the Petitioner's representative downloaded the letter dated 01.04.2022 from the e-filing account in which the Respondent admitted that the Petitioner had made a payment of Rs. 14,04,620/- on 12.10.2021. But this communication stated that the Petitioner ought to have paid Rs. 16,26,482/- since such payment was made after 30.09.2021. Based on this new reason, once again, the Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner benefits under the VsV Act. 19. Mr Sarda submitted that there was no delay on the Petitioner's part. He submitted that even assuming that there was some delay, the same was attributable to the technical glitches on the Respondents' website, and this Court has sufficient powers to extend the period or condone the delay. 20. Mr Sarda relied on I A Housing Solutions (P.) Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Taxi (2023) 147 taxmann.com 198 (Del.), Arjun Amarjeet Rampal Vs Union of India and other' WP No. 1468 of 2021 decided by Principal Bench on 30.03.2023, Kartik Pravinchandra Mehta Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 149 taxmann.com 482 (Bom.) and Vidhi Garments (P) Ltd. Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes & Another-(2023) 7 NYPCTR 30 (Del) in support of his contentions. 21. Ms Linhares, at the outset, submitted that there were no technical glitches, and Form 3 dated 01.09.2021 was uploaded on the same date, i.e. 01.09.2021 itself. She produced on record a printout from the website along with acknowledgement to show that Form 3 was uploaded on the website on 01.09.2021 itself. 22. Ms Linhares submitted that in terms of Form 3 dated 01.09.2021, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pending at any level could get the benefit from the scheme. 27. The statement of objects and reasons of the VsV Act states that over the years, the pendency of appeals filed by taxpayers as well as the Government has increased due to the fact that the number of appeals that are filed is much higher than the number of appeals that are disposed of. As a result, a huge amount of disputed tax arrears is locked- up in these appeals. As of November 30, 2019, the amount of disputed direct tax arrears was Rs. 9.32 lakh crores. Considering that the actual direct tax collection in the financial year 2018-19 was Rs. 11.37 lakh crores, the disputed tax arrears constitute nearly one year of direct tax collection'. The tax disputes consume copious amounts of time, energy and resources both on the part of the Government as well as taxpayers. Moreover, they also deprive the Government of the timely collection of revenue. Therefore, there is an urgent need to provide for the resolution of pending tax disputes. This will benefit not only the Government by generating timely revenue but also the taxpayers, who will be able to deploy the time, energy and resources saved by opting for such disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stating that the declarant has paid the amount. 32. However, no such order was made under Section 5 (2) within 1 5 days of the date of receipt of the certificate in the prescribed form. After considerable delay, however, the Petitioner, by communication dated 22.01.2022, was informed that the Petitioner's declaration was null and void since the Petitioner had not filed Form 4 to date and the last date for payment of taxes under the VsV extended up to 31.10.2021 had also lapsed. 33. The above communication dated 22.01.2022, which has been impugned in this petition, deserves to be quashed because, factually, the Petitioner had not only filed Form 4 within 15 days of the receipt of Form 3 and in any case before 31.10.2021, an amount of Rs. 14,04,620/- was paid by the Petitioner on 12.10.2021 and the Respondents even acknowledged this. The acknowledgment is on page 106 of the paper book of this petition. Therefore, to say that the Petitioner had not filed Form 4 or that the Petitioner had not made any payment up to 31.10.2021 was not correct, and based upon such an incorrect premise, the impugned communication dated 22.01.2022 could not have been issued. 34. The Petitioner, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical glitches deserves consideration and not outright rejection in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 37. Even after the Petitioner paid the amount of Rs. 14,04,620/- in the prescribed Form 4, the Respondents, by communication dated 22.01.2022, informed the Petitioner that they had not received Form 4 or, for that matter, any payment on or before the extended date of 31.10.2021. As noted earlier, this was an error apparent on the face of the record. This also supports the Petitioner's case about technical glitches in the new website. Possibly, the Petitioner and even the respondents were the victims of such migration and the consequent glitches. But for such glitches, it is unexplainable why the Respondents could not access the Petitioner's Form 4 and Petitioner's payment of Rs. 14,04,620/- which the Respondents duly acknowledged. This error was, however, acknowledged by the Respondents in the communication dated 01.04.2022, which again could be accessed by the Petitioner much later. 38. In the communication dated 01.04.2022, the Department did not allege that the Petitioner had not filed Form 4 or failed to make any payments to the Respondents. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill, the impugned communication dated 22.01.2022 erroneously alleged that the Petitioner had not filed Form 4 or that the Petitioner had made no payments before the extended date. In such peculiar facts and circumstances, we think that the petitioner should not have been denied the benefits under the VsV 42. The decisions cited by Mr Sarda suggest that the Courts, having regard to the cause shown by the parties, including the cause of technical glitches, have extended the time under the VsV scheme. In this case, the extension, strictly speaking, may not even be necessary, given the factual position. Therefore, we do not propose to go into the larger issues about the power to condone etc., since the matter can be decided on a narrow factual base. However, even if it is considered that there was some marginal delay of 10 to 12 days, the Respondents, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, were not justified in rejecting the Petitioner's declaration or holding that the Petitioner's declaration was null and void. 43 In Vidhi Garments (supra), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court noted that the assessee was quite vigilant and had reported substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
