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 denies extension for delayed payment under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Payment deadlines are strict.</h1> <h3>Suresh Kishna Bhagat Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Thane</h3> The court dismissed the petitioner's request for a direction to accept delayed payment of the 3rd installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. ... Payment of 3rd installment as per the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 been delayed - petitioner prayed for extension of time citing acute financial difficulties - Held that:- Perusal of the Scheme would suggest that the same does not provide for any extension of time for payment of any of the installments of payment of tax. Section 187 which pertains to time for payment of tax, in subsection (3) provides that if the declarant fails to pay the tax, surcharge and penalty in respect of the declaration made before the dates specified under subsection (1), the declaration filed by him shall be deemed never to have made under the scheme. These are strong indications that the legislature does not envisage any extension of time for payment of tax under the Scheme. No directions contrary to such legislation scheme can be granted. In this context, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hemalatha Gargya Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2002 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT]. Issues:Prayer for direction to accept delayed payment of 3rd installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.Analysis:The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent to accept the delayed payment of the 3rd installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The petitioner, an individual, had declared undisclosed income under the Scheme and was required to pay a total sum of &8377; 63,68,232 in three installments. While the petitioner paid the first two installments, financial difficulties prevented the payment of the third installment. The petitioner requested an extension of time for payment, which was not provided for in the Scheme. The court noted that the Scheme did not allow for any extension of time for payment of tax, as failing to pay within the specified dates would render the declaration void. Citing the decision in Hemalatha Gargya Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 9 SCC 510, the court emphasized that no extension of time could be granted contrary to the legislative scheme.The court highlighted that Section 187 of the Scheme specifically stated that failure to pay tax, surcharge, and penalty within the specified dates would invalidate the declaration. The court emphasized that the legislature did not envision any extension of time for payment under the Scheme. While the petitioner's counsel suggested applying for a refund or adjustment of the amount already deposited, the court refrained from commenting on this and stated that the petitioner could approach the authorities for such matters. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of, indicating that no direction contrary to the legislative scheme could be granted in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
