TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Rejection of Application for Late Tax Payment</h1> <h3>S. Sudarsana Babu Versus Income-tax Officer</h3> S. Sudarsana Babu Versus Income-tax Officer - [2011] 339 ITR 424 Issues:Challenge to rejection of application under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 based on delay in tax payment.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, due to a delay in tax payment. The petitioner submitted the application on December 30, 1997, to the Assessing Officer at Kollam, who then forwarded it to the Commissioner of Income-tax at Trivandrum. The Commissioner received the application on December 31, 1997. Although the tax was not remitted along with the declaration, it was paid with interest on March 31, 1998, one day after the deadline as per the Commissioner. The rejection led to a notice under section 148 for taxing the escaped income based on the scheme's declaration.The respondent argued that the application's filing date should be based on when the Commissioner received it. However, the petitioner contended that the date should be when the Assessing Officer received the declaration. The court held that the Department's argument was untenable as the application's date should be when the Assessing Officer received it, not when the Commissioner did. Rejecting the application due to a delay in transmission would create an unfair situation for applicants. Therefore, the court concluded that the rejection based on the delay in tax payment was justified but noted the petitioner's clear intention for settlement under the scheme. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim sympathetically regarding penalty and interest waivers in the subsequent proceedings initiated under section 148.In conclusion, the court upheld the rejection of the application under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, due to the delay in tax payment but acknowledged the petitioner's genuine intent for settlement. The court directed the respondents to review the petitioner's claim regarding penalties and interest waivers in the ongoing proceedings.
TaxTMI 