Court dismisses writ petitions on non-payment of Income Declaration Scheme 2016 installment, refusing time extension.

The court dismissed the writ petitions concerning non-payment of the third installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The petitioners' request for an extension of time was rejected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as the reasons provided were deemed insufficient. The court held that the excuses presented did not warrant interference with the payment schedule, emphasizing the mandatory nature of compliance. The possibility of seeking adjustment or refund of amounts paid was left open for separate consideration.

---

---

Issues:
1. Non-payment of the third installment of tax, surcharge, and penalty under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.
2. Request for extension of time for payment of the third installment.
3. Rejection of the extension request by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
4. Justifiability of reasons provided for seeking extension.
5. Consideration of writ jurisdiction for granting further time.
6. Possibility of adjustment or refund of amounts paid.

Issue 1: Non-payment of the third installment
The petitioners had declared undisclosed income under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 and paid 50% of the total amount payable towards tax, surcharge, and penalty. However, they failed to pay the third installment of the remaining 50% by the due date.

Issue 2: Request for extension of time
The petitioners sought an extension of time for making payment of the third installment through letters to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, citing reasons such as being preoccupied with office activities, implementation of GST and ERP software, and marketing responsibilities.

Issue 3: Rejection of extension request
The Central Board of Direct Taxes rejected the request for extension, stating that declarants were aware of the payment schedule and had sufficient time to plan their affairs for compliance. The Board found the reasons provided insufficient to justify granting an extension beyond the due date.

Issue 4: Justifiability of reasons for extension
The court examined the reasons given by the petitioners for seeking an extension and concluded that mere involvement in office work and marketing activities did not warrant an extension. The assertion of forgetting to pay the installment was deemed unbelievable and a lame excuse, especially considering the substantial amount due.

Issue 5: Consideration of writ jurisdiction
The court determined that the petitioners did not present an extraordinary case to warrant invoking writ jurisdiction for granting further time. The mandatory time periods set by the scheme had to be adhered to, and the excuses provided were not sufficient to justify an extension.

Issue 6: Adjustment or refund of amounts paid
The court clarified that the dismissal of the writ petitions would not prevent the petitioners from filing a separate petition to challenge the provision disallowing refunds. The court did not comment on the question of adjustment or refund of the amounts paid.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the reasons provided did not justify interference with the impugned order and grant of extension. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the payment schedule and the lack of exceptional circumstances to warrant further time. The possibility of seeking adjustment or refund of the amounts paid was left open for the petitioners to pursue in a separate petition.

---