Court upholds rejection of late payment in Income Declaration Scheme petition, emphasizing adherence to scheme provisions.

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the application to deposit the last installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Despite the petitioner's valid reasons for the delay in payment, including health issues, the Court emphasized adherence to the Scheme's provisions. Citing the absence of any provision allowing for a delay in payment, the Court held that the petitioner could not deposit the amount after the deadline. The Court underscored the importance of following the Scheme's requirements and declined to intervene without a specific provision for condonation of delay.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of application for depositing the last installment under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order rejecting his application to deposit the third and last installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The petitioner declared undisclosed income and was required to pay taxes in installments. He paid the first two installments on time but failed to pay the third installment due to health reasons affecting both him and his wife. The Principal Commissioner rejected his request for condonation of the delay, citing the absence of such provision in the Scheme.

The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the beneficial interpretation of the Scheme to serve both the assessee and the Revenue. He argued that the requirement for payment was administrative, not judicial, and that the reasons for the delay were valid. However, the Court noted the absence of any provision in the Scheme to grant additional time for payment after the deadline. The Court found the cited case distinguishable on facts and held that without a specific provision, they could not permit the petitioner to deposit the amount after the deadline.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that in the absence of any provision in the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, to allow for a delay in payment, the petitioner's case did not merit quashing the order rejecting his application. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Scheme's provisions and declined to intervene in the absence of a specific provision for condonation of delay.

---