TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the Scheme. Respondent No. 1 issued certificates of intimation under the Scheme in Form II to the petitioners. The petitioners by the aforesaid certificates of intimation were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 17,763 for the assessment year 1990-91 and a sum of Rs. 31,952 for the assessment year 1991-92. It is the case of the petitioners that they received the intimation dated February 3, 1999 under section 90(1) of the Act on March 17, 1999, and thereafter the payment of the amount in terms of the Scheme was made on March 23, 1999, and intimations were sent on March 24, 1999 to respondent No. 1. However, respondent No. 1 vide order dated January 31, 2000, intimated the petitioners that the intimation under section 90(1) of the Act in respect of the Scheme was issued on February 3, 1999 and, therefore, the period of 30 days for payment expired on March 5, 1999. Since, within the stipulated time the petitioners did not make payment of amount therefore, the petitioners are not eligible to relief under the Scheme. Accordingly, the declaration filed by the petitioners under section 88 of the Act was rejected. 3. Thereafter the petitioners filed applications on February 28, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of tax determined by the authority. It is averred that even assuming that the amended provision permits the petitioners to make payment of the amount of tax within thirty days from the date of receipt of the certificate, the payment should have been made latest by March 8, 1999, whereas the payment of tax in the instant case has been made by the petitioners beyond the prescribed period, i.e., on March 23, 1999. It is further averred that even if the provisions of the Scheme as amended by the Finance Act, 2000 are applicable then also the payment has not been made within the stipulated period. The respondents have disputed the contention of the petitioners that the certificate under section 90(1) was received on March 17, 1999. It has further been stated that the affidavits along with the applications dated September 25, 2002 have been filed by way of afterthought. Initially, the petitioner-company admitted in its application dated February 28, 2000 that delay in making the payment of amount of tax has occasioned due to non\x7f availability of funds and, therefore, the delay should be condoned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the certificate was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me therefore, it is useful to produce the relevant provisions of the Scheme ([1998] 232 ITR (St.) 79) : "87. Definitions.-In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise requires,- (e) `disputed income' in relation to an assessment year, means the whole or so much of the total income as is relatable to the disputed tax ; . . . 88. Settlement of tax payable.-Subject to the provisions of this Scheme, where any person makes, on or after the first day of September, 1998 but on or before the 31st day of December, 1998, a declaration to the designated authority in accordance with the provisions of section 89 in respect of tax arrear, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment or any other provisions of any law for the time being in force, the amount payable under this Scheme by the declarant shall be determined at the rates specified hereunder, namely :- . . . (i) in the case of a declarant, being a company or a firm, at the rate of thirty-five per cent. of the disputed income ; . . . (iii) in the case where tax arrear includes income tax, interest payable or penalty levied, at the rate of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hemalatha Gargya [2003] 259 ITR 1 wherein their Lordships while considering the provisions of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 introduced by the Finance Act, 1997 held that in the absence of any express provision empowering the authority to condone the delay, the authority would have no power to condone the delay. It was further held by the apex court that the authority is bound by the provisions of the Scheme and cannot act beyond the provisions of the Scheme. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold the designated authority under the Scheme has no power to condone the delay in making the payment of amount of tax as required under section 90(2) of the Act. 10. Now, we shall advert to the second issue which arises for consideration, namely, whether the amount of tax was paid by the petitioners within the prescribed time-limit under the Scheme. As per the version of the petitioners, they were served with the certificate on March 17, 1999, and the amount of tax was paid on March 23, 1999, which is within the limitation. On the other hand the Revenue has taken a stand in categorical terms that the certificate date....