Retrospective amendment under the Income Declaration Scheme led to fresh representation and interim protection from coercive recovery.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned after the explanation was found satisfactory. The retrospective amendment to the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, together with the subsequent notification, was treated as enabling fresh administrative consideration because the third instalment had been paid with interest before the notified cut-off date and the earlier representation remained undecided. The assessee was therefore permitted to submit a fresh representation, the authority was directed to decide it by a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law, and coercive recovery was restrained until that decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal deserved condonation. (ii) Whether, in view of the retrospective amendment to the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 and the subsequent notification, the assessee could be granted liberty to make a fresh representation and interim protection from coercive recovery.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The explanation placed in support of the delay was found satisfactory, and the delay was not treated as fatal to the appeal.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the retrospective amendment to the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 and the subsequent notification, the assessee could be granted liberty to make a fresh representation and interim protection from coercive recovery.

Analysis: The amendment made by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 was treated as retrospectively applicable from 1 June 2016. The Court noted that the third instalment had been paid with interest before the notified cut-off date and that the earlier representation had remained undecided. In these circumstances, the Court held that the assessee could renew the request before the authority, which was required to pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law. Pending such consideration, coercive recovery was restrained.

Conclusion: The assessee was granted liberty to submit a fresh representation, and interim protection against coercive recovery was granted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with procedural relief on delay, liberty to pursue the statutory benefit before the authority, and protection against coercive recovery until the representation was decided.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory amendment is expressly given retrospective effect and the assessee has acted within the extended notified time, the matter may be remitted for fresh administrative consideration through a speaking order, with interim protection against coercive recovery pending such decision.

---