Karnataka High Court
Atmjit Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: (2001)169CTR(KAR)219, ILR2001KAR4833, [2001]252ITR233(KAR), [2001]252ITR233(KARN)
Author: P.V. Reddi
Bench: P.V. Reddi, N.K. Patil
JUDGMENT P.V. Reddi, C.J.
1. We see no legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned single judge (see [2001] 247 ITR 356) holding that in view of non-compliance of Section 67(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, the declaration filed by the writ petitioner shall be deemed to be non est under the Scheme by virtue of the explicit declaration contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 67. The appellant ought to have paid the tax with interest on or before March 27, 1998. But, she paid the tax with interest only on March 31, 1998. As observed by the learned single judge, when the language in Sub-sections (1) and (2) is specific and clear, it is not possible to give any benefit to the appellant by overlooking the delay of three days. If such benefit is given to the appellant, it amounts to departing from the terms of the Scheme which does not contemplate condonation of delay by embarking on an enquiry whether there was sufficient cause or not for the belated payment or for belated submission of the declaration. The Scheme has advisedly prescribed a particular outer limit for adhering to various steps contemplated therein. In our view, it is impermissible to alter the time schedules by implying a provision to condone the delay.
2. If there is possibility of more than one construction, probably this court would have leaned in favour of placing such construction as to give benefit to the taxpayer in deserving cases. But, as already observed, the language employed in the Scheme and the features spelt out of the Scheme are crystal clear and do not admit of different interpretations.
3. Apart from the legal position clarified above, the writ petition could be dismissed on the short ground that no ground has been made out by the petitioner which could be treated as sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The only reason advanced by the appellant is that she was carried away by the news in TV and newspapers that payment could be made by March 31, 1998. No such news or press communique from the income-tax authorities has been placed before the court. The explanation, therefore, is apparently false. The cases in which the delay was overlooked for extraordinary reasons, viz., Laxmi Mittal v. CIT and CIT v. E. Prahalatha Babu , do not come to the aid of the appellant. It may be pointed out that the decision in Laxmi Mittal's case was considered by the Division Bench in Vyshnavi Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. CBDT [2000] 243 ITR 101 (AP) to which one of us (Chief Justice) was a party. In that case also, the Division Bench found no valid reason for condonation of delay. On that short ground itself, similar writ petition was rejected by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The position is the same in the present case also.
4. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed.