Madras H.C : The respondent in the writ petition, CIT, is the appellant. The respondent herein submitted a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997. The said scheme came into force on 1st July, 1997, and the last date for submitting the declaration was 31st Dec., 1997.

High Court Of Madras

CIT vs. E. Prahalatha Babu

Sections 1997FA 67, Art. 226

K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J. & K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.

Writ Appeal No. 2460 of 1999 & CMP No. 20707 of 1999

23rd December, 1999

Counsel Appeared

Mrs. Chitra Venkatraman for C.V. Rajan, for the Appellant : P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, C.J.:

The respondent in the writ petition, CIT, is the appellant. The respondent herein submitted a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997. The said scheme came into force on 1st July, 1997, and the last date for submitting the declaration was 31st Dec., 1997. The declarant has to file the declaration without paying the tax payable under s. 66 of the Finance Act, 1997, and he may pay the same within three months from the date of filing of the declaration with simple interest at the rate of 2 per cent per mensem. The respondent/petitioner failed to pay the tax, on the basis of the declaration filed by him, before the expiry of three months from the date of filing the declaration. The respondent ought to have paid the tax on or before 28th March, 1998, but he could pay the same only on 31st March, 1998. The appellant, therefore did not accept the application of the respondent under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme and as the respondent was denied the benefit of the scheme, he filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge held that even though there was a delay of three days in making the payment of tax, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

2. We heard the appellant’s counsel. It was submitted by the appellant’s counsel that the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme is a special procedure and the payment of tax should be made in accordance with the scheme and if there is any violation of the procedure prescribed under the scheme by any person, such persons cannot be given the benefit of the scheme. It is true that the said proposition of law is correct. But in the instant case, the last date for submission of the application under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme was upto 31st Dec., 1997, and the respondent paid the tax on 31st March, 1998. It is true that the declarant should have paid the tax within three months from the date of filing the declaration. The respondent’s application was filed on 29th Dec., 1998 and, therefore, the tax ought to have been paid on 28th March ,1998, but the same was paid only on 31st March, 1998. The respondent had applied for a bank loan since he had to pay Rs. 9.75 lakhs by way of tax as the amount declared by him under the scheme was Rs. 38.36 lakhs. The learned Judge has exercised his discretionary power and we do not think that it was contrary to the express provision of law. An appeal against such an order could be interfered with only if the power exercised is irrational or illegal. We do not think that this is a fit case for this Court to interfere in appeal. Therefore, the writ appeal is without any merit. The writ appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, CWP No. 20707 of 1999 is dismissed.

[Citation : 249 ITR 309]

Malcare WordPress Security