Court sets aside rejection of petitioner's Income Declaration Scheme, directs reconsideration with credit for TDS & advance tax.

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the rejection of the petitioner's declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The Principal Commissioner was directed to reconsider the declaration, granting credit for both TDS and the advance tax paid for the assessment year 2013-14, with a decision to be expedited within four weeks.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of declaration under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS) due to failure to pay tax, surcharge, and penalty by the due date.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their declaration under IDS for not paying the required tax, surcharge, and penalty by the due date of 30.09.2017. The petitioner declared undisclosed income and sought credit for TDS and advance tax/prepaid tax paid, as per the IDS provisions.

2. The IDS allowed payment of tax, surcharge, and penalty in installments between 30.11.2016 and 30.09.2017. The petitioner declared undisclosed income and claimed credit for TDS and advance tax paid. After adjustments, the petitioner paid the balance amount in installments as required by the scheme.

3. The first respondent rejected the petitioner's declaration citing no provision in IDS to allow credit for prepaid taxes. The petitioner approached the Court, claiming entitlement to such credit based on the payments made. The petitioner's credit for TDS was not in dispute.

4. The first respondent contended that prepaid taxes could not be adjusted under IDS and relied on Income Tax Act provisions regarding credit for advance tax in regular assessments. The petitioner's failure to file returns for the relevant years was highlighted.

5. An additional counter-affidavit emphasized the petitioner's failure to pay advance tax under the correct head and the ineligibility to claim credit for it under IDS. The petitioner was urged to make the required payment along with interest to benefit from IDS.

6. The Court noted that the first respondent's rejection was based on the lack of provision for prepaid tax credit, not on the incorrect head under which the payment was made. The Court rejected the attempt to introduce new grounds not raised initially.

7. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's credit for TDS and the CBDT's clarification allowing such credit. The petitioner's payments were deemed sufficient to cover the liability, pending resolution on the adjustment of the advance tax paid for 2013-14.

8. Referring to a Delhi High Court case, the Court supported the adjustment of advance tax payments against IDS liabilities, as long as they were relevant to the declaration period. The Court dismissed the relevance of a different case cited by the respondents.

9. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the rejection of the petitioner's declaration. The Principal Commissioner was directed to reconsider the declaration, giving credit for both TDS and the advance tax paid for the assessment year 2013-14. The decision was to be expedited within four weeks.

---