Umesh D. Ganore Vs PCIT (Bombay High Court)
Conclusion: Advance tax, self assessed tax and TDS paid prior to filing of declaration, should not be adjusted towards discharge of assessee’s liability to pay tax, surcharge and penalty under the scheme of Income Tax Declaration Scheme, 2016 in absence of any specific provision in the scheme, granting benefit of the self assessed tax or advance tax under the Act.
Held: Assessee was an individual. He challenged decision of Revenue in not accepting his declaration under Income Tax Declaration Scheme, 2016. The controversy between assessee and the department was that assessee’s claim that, advance tax, self assessed tax and TDS paid prior to filing of declaration, should be adjusted towards discharge of assessee’s liability to pay tax, surcharge and penalty under the said Scheme. Department contended that such adjustment could be made only in relation to the tax deducted at source, if the corelation between such TDS and the declaration of undisclosed income under the Scheme could be established. Department further contended that the declaration of an assessee under the said Scheme would be composite and not severable for different Assessment Years. It was held in absence of any specific provision in the scheme, granting benefit of the self assessed tax or advance tax under the Act, for the purpose of discharging the assessee’s liability under the said scheme, the same could not be readily presumed. The provisions contained in the scheme enabled assessee to disclose undisclosed income. There was no provision in the scheme which required the declarant to make a composite declaration in relation to several assessment years for which he desirous to make a declaration of undisclosed income. The scheme did not prohibit multiple declarations by the assessee, making separate declarations for different assessment years. If the declaration of assessee of undisclosed income for the particular assessment year fulfilled all requirement of the scheme, there was no reason why such a declarant should not get benefit of such declaration simply because in relation to other assessment years, the declaration might fail for any reason.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT
1. These Petitions involve common question of law. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we may record facts from Writ Petition No.14709 of 2010.
2 Petitioner is an individual. Petitioner has challenged a decision of the RevenueAuthority in not accepting the Petitioner’s declaration under Income Tax Declaration Scheme, 2016 (herein after referred to as Scheme of 2016). Petitioner has further challenged the re-assessment notices issued by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years covered under such declaration as well as orders of assessment passed pursuant to such notices. Petitioner has also challenged notices for prosecution issued by the competent authority under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
3 The Union Legislature framed said Scheme under Section 183 of the Finance Act, 2006, giving an opportunity to the assessees to make declarations under the said Scheme of undisclosed income. Subject to the declarant fulfilling the conditions contained in the said Scheme and acceptance of the declaration by the authority, the declarant would be spared the penalty and prosecution. We would advert to the provisions of the said Scheme in detail later.
4 The Petitioner, desirous of taking benefit of the said Scheme made a common declaration of undisclosed income for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to Assessment Years 2014-15 on 29th September, 2016. The Petitioner declared his un-disclosed income for the subject Assessment Years, as under:
