2018 (2) TMI 1349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome under the Income Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016, introduced vide Finance Act, 2016. By common order dated 5th February, 2018, we have dismissed W.P.(C) 1069/2018 filed by Siddharth Rastogi and W.P.(C) 1070/2018 filed by Dal Chandra Rastogi. The present writ petition would also meet the same fate. 3. Meena Rastogi had filed declaration of undisclosed income of Rs. 2,98,04,595/- under the Income Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016 in terms of the Finance Act, 2016. 4. Total amount payable by the petitioner towards tax, surcharge and penalty on the aforesaid declaration was Rs. 1,34,12,069/-. 5. The petitioner paid the first two installments of Rs. 33,53,018/- each, at the rate of 25% of the total tax, surcharge and penalty payable. In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid 50% of total tax due in time and would have deposited the same, had I remember. Under these circumstances, I request you that I may be allowed to deposit the balance 50% tax and my declaration may please be accepted. 8. The letter, it is stated, was followed by a reminder dated 3rd November, 2017. The reasons given by Meena Rastogi in the aforesaid letter were similar to the reasons given by Dal Chandra Rastogi and Siddharth Rastogi. 9. By letter dated 29th November, 2017, request for extension of time for payment/deposit of third installment of tax, surcharge and penalty payable under the Income Tax Declaration Scheme, 2016 was rejected. We would quote the letter dated 29th November, 2017 which reads: "Subject: Your request da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ime. The reasons given by the petitioner do not make out a case to interfere with the impugned order and grant extension of time. The ground taken by the petitioner, that she is 70 years of age and suffering from ill health which had become a hurdle in her day-to-day work, cannot be a ground to seek an extension of time. Assertion that the petitioner merely forgot to pay the third installment is unbelievable and a lame excuse. Such declarations are unique and made after due deliberation and thought. Amount payable towards the third installment was substantial. Clearly, the petitioner was unable to pay the amount, and thereafter has pleaded and attributed it to loss of memory. The time period fixed was mandatory and had to be adhered to. The....