TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 919
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Scheme, 2016 (IDS), was rejected on the ground that he had failed to pay the tax, surcharge and penalty on the undisclosed income declared by him before the due date, i.e., Septem- ber 30, 2017. A consequential direction is sought to the Income-tax autho- rities to accept and act upon the said declaration. 2. The petitioner filed the subject declaration under the Income Declara- tion Scheme in Form 1 on June 30, 2016 for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 40,98,706. The Income Declaration Scheme was promulgated under sections 184 and 185 of the Finance Act, 2016, enabling an assessee to pay tax at 30 per cent. on undis- closed income along with surcharge and penalty at 25 per cent. on the tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 184 of the Finance Act, 2016, and the penalty payable under section 185 thereof, in respect of his undisclosed income, were payable by the petitioner in terms of his decla- ration and proof of such payment was required to be furnished in Form 3. According to him, there was, no provision in the Income Declaration Scheme enabling credit being given to prepaid taxes. He asserted that the advance tax paid by the petitioner could not be adjusted against the tax, surcharge and penalty payable under the Income Declaration Scheme. He pointed out that the petitioner had not filed his return of income for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 and therefore, the advance tax paid by him could not be given credit while computing his liability in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....towards his liability in respect of the undis- closed income declared under the Income Declaration Scheme. He pointed out that the petitioner had not paid the required amount within time and asserted that if he wished to avail of the benefit of the Income Declaration Scheme, he would have to make the required payment now along with interest. 7. Heard Sri A. V. A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. At the outset, we may note that there is no dispute as regards the credit claimed by the petitioner towards tax deducted at source. In this regard, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Ministry of Finance, Govern- ment of India, its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment instead of Minor Head-100, which pertains to advance tax. Significantly, the impugned proceedings dated February 6, 2018 do not proceed on the strength of this aspect for refusing to give credit for the sum of Rs. 1,10,000 paid by the petitioner for the assessment year 2013-14. It was only on the premise that the Income Declaration Scheme made no provision to allow credit for prepaid taxes that the first respondent held that the petitioner was not eligible to claim credit for the same. Further, this aspect was not even raised by the first respondent in the first counter-affidavit. It is there- fore not open to the first respondent to now improve upon the case by supplementing a new ground which does not even find mention in the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in the Income Declaration Scheme, express or implied, which pre- cluded the reckoning or taking into account of previously paid amounts which had nexus with the periods sought to be covered by the scheme. 12. Adverting to the clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in relation to credit for tax deducted at source, the Division Bench observed that such a clarification precluded any meaningful argument being advanced by the Revenue that advance tax payments relative to the assess- ment year covered by the declaration could not be taken into consideration as payments under the scheme and for the purpose of availing of the ben- efits of the scheme. The Income-tax authorities were accordingly directed to ensure that the pa....