Income Declaration Scheme delay relief denied where no provision existed for condonation of delayed installment payment.

The Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 required installment payments within the prescribed time, and the scheme contained no provision for extension of time or condonation of delay. On that basis, the HC held that delayed deposit of the third and final installment could not be directed to be accepted. The petitioner therefore was not entitled to make the payment after the due date, and the rejection of the request was upheld. The precedent cited by the petitioner was treated as distinguishable on facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be permitted to deposit the third and last installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 after the prescribed due date in the absence of any provision for condonation of delay.

Analysis: The declaration made by the petitioner was accepted, but the scheme required payment of installments within the stipulated time. The Court noted that the scheme contained no provision enabling extension of time or condonation of delay beyond the prescribed date. In the absence of such an enabling provision, the Court held that it could not direct acceptance of the delayed payment. The reliance placed on the cited precedent was found distinguishable on facts.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to deposit the third installment after 30.9.2017, and the rejection of the request was upheld.

---