TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Crediting advance and self-assessment taxes against Income Declaration Scheme 2016 dues for Form 4; appeal dismissed for delay.</h1> The dominant issue was whether taxes already paid (advance tax and self-assessment tax) could be credited against liability under the Income Declaration ... Declaration made by Petitioners under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 Credit for the self assessment tax paid under IDS - assessee declared income under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS) - Petitioner was informed that advance tax and self assessment tax paid by Petitioner could not be adjusted against the liability under the IDS delay of 515 days in filing the Special Leave Petition As decided by HC [2024 (4) TMI 1354 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Respondents to act in furtherance of the declaration made by Petitioners under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (“IDS”) read with IDS Rules and issue Form 4 under the IDS within four weeks from today after giving credit to all amounts paid including the advance tax and self assessment tax, as the case may be. HELD THAT:- As there is a gross delay of 515 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioners. Even otherwise, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Issues: (i) Whether the gross delay in filing the Special Leave Petition (515 days) is satisfactorily explained so as to permit condonation of delay; (ii) Whether, notwithstanding delay, the Supreme Court should interfere with the impugned High Court order on merits.Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition can be condoned.Analysis: The petition record shows a delay of 515 days in filing the Special Leave Petition. The explanation for that delay was considered and found unsatisfactory. The procedural requirement for explaining and seeking condonation of delay was applied to the facts, and absence of satisfactory explanation was treated as a bar to admission.Conclusion: The delay is not satisfactorily explained and condonation of delay is refused. Conclusion is against the petitioners (not in favour of the petitioners).Issue (ii): Whether the Supreme Court should nevertheless interfere with the High Court order on merits.Analysis: Independently of the question of delay, the merits were considered and the Court found no reason to disturb the impugned order of the High Court. The exercise of discretionary jurisdiction was reviewed and no basis was found to admit the petition on merits.Conclusion: No interference with the High Court order; conclusion is in favour of the respondent/assessee.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay and on merits; pending applications, if any, are disposed of.Ratio Decidendi: A Special Leave Petition may be dismissed where the delay in filing is gross and unexplained; additionally, the Supreme Court will not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 to interfere with a High Court order if no sufficient merit is shown.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
