Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Hemalatha Gargya vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, A.P. - Ii ... on 11 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)ALT105, (2000)162CTR(AP)61, [2000]244ITR143(AP), [2000]110TAXMAN429(AP)
Author: P. Venkatarama Reddi
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi
ORDER PVR, J.
1. The petitioner questions the communication dated 29.02.2000 sent by the first respondent that the tax demanded having not been made within the time limit of three months specified under Section 67(1) of Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, the declaration filed by her is treated as non est and lodged. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the first respondent in refusing to condone the delay of 16 days in paying the tax is illegal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the last date for filing the declaration was upto 31.12.1997. The assessee filed her declaration on 16.12.1997. Thus, if the petitioner had filed the declaration on 31.12.1997 instead of 16.12.1997, the tax payment made on 31.03.1998 would have been within the time. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that it is a fit case to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner. The learned counsel relies on the decisions of Punjab and Haryana High Court in SMT.LAXMI MITTAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (238 ITR Page 97) and Madras High Court in E.PRAHALATHA BABU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (241 ITR Page 457).
3. The learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department has brought to our notice that a different view was taken by another Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in KAMAL SOOD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (241 ITR Page 567). It is contended by the learned standing counsel that the time limit prescribed under the Scheme should be strictly adhered to and there is no provision for condonation of delay. The learned standing counsel has relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party - W.P.No.26419 of 1999.
4. On the facts of this case, it is not necessary for us to dwell deep into the question and express our opinion on the correctness of the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and by a learned single of the Madras High Court. Suffice it to observe that prima facie it appears to us that the Court cannot by a process of interpretation improve upon or improvise something which is not found in the Scheme. Be that as it may, we are not satisfied that in the instant case the reasons given by the petitioner for non-payment of tax are so substantial so as to bring the instant case within the ratio of the two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This is not a case where it can be said by any objective standard that the tax could not be paid by the petitioner for the reasons beyond her control. The only reason given in the affidavit is that she was not in a position to mobilise the resources. Such explanation which is in vaguest possible terms cannot be a ground at all to seek condonation of delay assuming that such power to condone the delay inheres with the competent authority or the Court. If the time limit set by the legislature is to be extended on such flimsy grounds, there is every possibility of the Scheme itself being frustrated by judicial interpretation. We, therefore, see no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed.