Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Vyshnavi Appliances (P) Ltd. vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Anr. on 1 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2000]243ITR101(AP)
Author: P. Venkatarama Reddi
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi
JUDGMENT P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.
The petitioner filed a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme introduced by the Finance Act of 1997, on 30-12-1997, under section 67 of the Act, The petitioner ought to have paid the tax at the latest on 30-3-1998, with interest at the rate of two per cent for every month or part thereof calculated from the date of filing the declaration. Sub-section (1) of section 67 requires that the proof of payment of tax shall be filed within the period of three nionths from the date of filing the declaration. Sub-section (2) enjoins that if the declarant fails to pay the tax in respect of the voluntarily disclosed income before the expiry of three months from the date of filing of the declaration, the declaration shall be deemed never to have been made under the scheme (emphasis here italicised in print supplied). The petitioner paid the tax on 31-3-1998. No explanation has been given for the delay of one day in payment of tax. The petitioner applied to the Central Board of Direct Taxes purportedly under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to condone the delay of one day in filing proof of payment of tax relatable to the income voluntarily disclosed. The same was rejected by the impugned order dated 22-10-1999, which reads as follows :
"I am directed to refer to your representation dated 22-9-1999, regarding condonation of delay under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme and to say that the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme certificates can be issued only in those cases where the tax has been paid on/within the period of 90 days.
The Board have considered your petition and is of the view that the judgment in the case of Smt. Laxmi Mittal (1999) 238 ITR 97 (P & H), cited by Would not apply in all cases as the facts may be different in each individual case. Hence, your request cannot he acceded to."
We find no legal ground to grant relief to the petitioner under article 226 as we cannot say that the Central Board of Direct Taxes committed any error of law or overlooked any relevant consideration in declining to condone the delay. We have our own doubts whether clause (b) of section 119(2) could at all be invoked to condone the delay in filing the declaration under. the voluntary disclosure scheme which is a self-contained scheme. The expression "the period specified by or under this Act for making the application or claim" gives scope for such doubt. Be that as it may, in the absence of any convincing explanation for non-payment of tax within the period of three months allowed by the scheme, the petitioner cannot be said to have made out any case for extending the statutorily prescribed time limit or for showing any indulgence. Unless there is specific provision for condonation of delay, the question of granting any relief under article 226 does not arise, more so, when the petitioner has not come for ward with any explanation for the delay. The decision of the Punjab arid Haryana High Court in Smt. Laxmi Mittal v. CIT (supra) , relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on the facts. That was a case in which the High Court found that the assessee could not pay the tax for reasons beyond her control in view of the accident and treatment in a hospital. If the tax could not be paid for reasons beyond the control of the assessee within three months, what would be the position is a different aspect. As far as this case is concerned, no such ground is avail able to the petitioner. As regards the observations made in the said judgment that the last date for deposit of tax along with interest would expire on 31-3-1998, with great respect, we are unable to agree with that observation which goes plainly contrary to the relevant provisions of' the statute, viz., section 67(1) and (2). The further observation that the provisions of taxing statute are to be construed liberally does not accord with the accepted principles of interpretation of a taxing statute. We respect fully differ with the aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. We, however, see no legal bar for refunding the tax, which has been tendered by the petitioner. Section 70 of the Finance Act does not obviously come in the way of the petitioner.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.