High CourtsDivision Bench(2017) 04 BOM CK 0011

Nandu Atmaram Wajekar vs Union of India

Bombay High Court · Decided on 5 April 2017 · Citation: (2017) 295 CurTR 212 : (2017) 247 Taxman 145

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.S. Sanklecha and S.C. Gupte, JJ.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 3578 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 453 words
1.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane to accept a sum of Rs.1.19 crores being the amount of 25% tax payable by the petitioner on declared undisclosed income under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 even after the specified date to make the payment.

2.

The petitioner had on 30th September, 2016 filed a declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (part of the Finance Act, 2016) declaring a total undisclosed income of Rs.11.59 crores for Assessment Years 2014 and 2015 determining the total tax payable (including penalty) thereon at Rs.5.21 crores. In terms of the Notification issued under Section 183 of the Income Declaration Scheme, the petitioner is required to pay 25% of the tax payable on or before 30th November, 2016, further amounts payable on or before 31st March, 2017 and 30th September, 2017. The petitioner has failed to pay the tax which he was obliged to pay before 30th November, 2016.

3.

The petitioner''s grievance is that he was unable to deposit the amount of Rs.1.19 crores being the 25% which he was required to deposit before 30th September, 2017 under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 in view of the demonetization of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- currency notes on 8th November, 2016. Thus, he seeks a direction to the respondent Revenue to now accept Rs.1.19 crores which he was unable to deposit on or before 30th November, 2016.

4.

We asked the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner whether there is any provision under the Scheme or in the Rules made thereunder, which would permit the Authorities acting under the Scheme to accept payment made consequent to the declaration filed under the Scheme even after specified date to make a part payment of tax has passed. We were informed there is no such provision.

Therefore, the direction sought from us is that the Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane act dehors the provisions of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. We will not issue any such directions as the Authorities are obliged to act in accordance with the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 which is a part of the Finance Act, 2016.

5.

It must be borne in mind that the Scheme was optional, the dates of payment were known at the time of filing the declaration and above all it is a facility which has been made available to parties who have failed to disclose their income and pay the appropriate tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961, to come clean. In the above view, we see no reason to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction in these facts.

6.

Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.