TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd penalty in first instalment; for an amount not less than 50% of such tax, surcharge and penalty as reduced by the amount paid in the second instalment; and for the whole amount to be paid as reduced by the amounts earlier paid in the third instalment. Admittedly, Petitioner made payment of the first instalment but defaulted the remaining two instalments. In view of the default, as provided under Clause 3 of Section 187 of the IDS, the declaration filed by Petitioner was deemed to have never been made under the IDS and as provided under Section 197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016 the undisclosed income shall be chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") in the previous year in which the declaration was made. In view thereof, Pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20, paid a sum of Rs. 37,71,800/-. On payment of the amount, Respondent No. 1 also issued Form No. 4 on 22nd January 2020. Form No. 4, copy whereof is at Exhibit 'O' to the Petition, also mentions that declaration made on 30th September 2016 has been accepted and that Petitioner has paid entire tax due under the Scheme. In the impugned order dated 20th March 2021, these facts are not disputed. In fact they have been accepted as reflecting the true facts. 3. As a result of the said acceptance of the declaration of Petitioner under the IDS, amount of undisclosed income of Rs. 85,96,886/- could not have been taxed under the Act as per Section 188 of the IDS Finance Act, 2016. The time limit, however, to file revised return had expired....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ACIT v Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 161 taxmann 316 (SC) submitted that since Petitioner had filed returns under Section 139 and that was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, that processing order will not be an order and, therefore, Respondent No. 1 was justified in not entertaining application under Section 264 of the Act. 6. In our view, judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Jhaveri (Supra) will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case because that was a case where the Court was considering the provisions of Section 147 for re-opening the assessment. The Court was considering whether the question of change of opinion would arise when an order under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Therefore, the relief which was not granted by the Assessing Officer could be granted by the Commissioner under Section 264. Before allowing such deduction if any further enquiry was required to be done, the Commissioner could have either himself enquired or directed the Assessing Officer to do the needful. However, the Commissioner has declined to exercise power under Section 264 because of amendment to Section 143(1) by Finance Act, 1999. Powers of the Assessing Officer to make prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1), done away with by Finance Act, 1999 (with effect from 1st June, 1999) does not in any way effect the right of the Commissioner under Section 265 of the Act to grant relief to the assessee if available to the assessee a....