Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Siddharth Rastogi Vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue & Anr.
March, 23rd 2018
$~39 & 40

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               W.P.(C) 1069/2018, CM Nos.4455-4456/2018

                                       Date of decision: 5th February, 2018.

        SIDDHARTH RASTOGI                                       ..... Petitioner

                                  Through:   Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Ms.Ananya
                                             Kapoor, Mr.Sumit, Advocates
                  versus
        CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, UNION OF
        INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF
        REVENUE & ANR.                    ..... Respondents
                                  Through:   Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate

+                   W.P.(C) 1070/2018, CM Nos.4457-4458/2018
        DAL CHANDRA RASTOGI                                   ..... Petitioner
                    Through:                 Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Ms.Ananya
                                             Kapoor, Mr.Sumit, Advocates
                        versus

        CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT
        TAXES & ANR.                        ...Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
        The writ petitioners, namely, Siddharth Rastogi and Dal
Chandra Rastogi, had filed declarations of undisclosed income of



WP(C) Nos.1069/2018 & 1070/2018                                      Page 1 of 6
Rs.44,57,940/- and Rs.40,11,000/- respectively under the Income
Declaration Scheme, 2016 in terms of the Finance Act, 2016.

2.      The total amount payable towards tax, surcharge and penalty on
the aforesaid declaration, in the case of Siddharth Rastogi and Dal
Chandra Rastogi was Rs.20,06,074/- and Rs.18,04,950/- respectively.






3.      The petitioners paid first two installments of 25% each of the
total tax, surcharge and penalty. In other words, the petitioners had
paid 50% of the amount payable.

4.      The petitioners did not pay the third installment of the
remaining 50% of the tax, surcharge and penalty which was due and
payable on or before 30th September, 2017, i.e. Rs.10,03,036/- in the
case of Siddharth Rastogi and Rs.9,02,474/- in the case of Dal
Chandra Rastogi.

5.      The petitioners vide letters dated 9th October, 2017 to the
Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes had sought and prayed
extension of time for making payment of the third installment.
Relevant portion of the letter dated 9th October, 2017 in the case of
Siddharth Rastogi reads:-

            "I Siddharth Rastogi S/o Sh D.C. Rastogi R/o B-53,
            Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi having PAN No.
            AAAPR1329R submitted the declaration under
            Section 183 of The Finance Act 2016. The
            declaration was duly acknowledged vide Form 2
            dated 27.09.2016 showing undisclosed income of
            Rs.4457970/- (copy enclosed). The total tax,


WP(C) Nos.1069/2018 & 1070/2018                               Page 2 of 6
            surcharge and penalty due on this income payable
            in three instalments was as under:

            Tax                   :    1337382/-
            Surcharge             :    334346/-
            Penalty               :    334346/-

            I paid the following first two instalment as under:

            On 30.11.22016            : 501519/-
            On 29.03.17               : 505119/-

            The third instalment of Rs.1003036/- was payable
            on or before 30.09.2016. This instalment could not
            be paid due to the reason that I was pre-occupied
            with the various office activities. I am a director in
            2-3 companies and was involved in implementation
            of GST and ERP software. Besides this, I also look
            after marketing activities of the company which
            keeps me always on travelling domestic and
            abroad. Since, there was a gap of 6-months
            between 2nd and 3rd instalment to deposit the tax, it
            slipped from my mind to deposit the same. I have
            already paid 50% tax and my declaration may
            please be accepted."


6.      Letter by Dal Chandra Rastogi was identical. In addition, Dal
Chandra Rastogi had pleaded that he was a senior citizen being 71
years of age and had been paying income tax for the last 35 years.

7.      These two letters it is stated were followed by reminders dated
3rd November, 2017.



WP(C) Nos.1069/2018 & 1070/2018                                   Page 3 of 6
8.      By letter dated 3rd November, 2017 in the case of Siddharth
Rastogi and 9th November, 2017 in the case of Dal Chandra Rastogi,
request for extension of time for payment/deposit of third installment
of tax, surcharge and penalty under the Income Tax Declaration
Scheme, 2016 has been rejected. As the language of the two letters is
identical, we would quote the letter dated 3rd November, 2017 in the
case of Siddharth Rastogi, which reads:

            "Subject: Your request dated 09.10.2017 for
            allowing to deposit third instalment of tax payable
            under IDS-2016 beyond the due date ­ reg.

            Kindly refer to your application dated 09.10.2017
            on the above mentioned subject.

            2.        In this regard, your request for granting
            permission to deposit the third instalment of
            tax/surcharge/penalty payable under IDS-2015,
            beyond the due date has been considered by the
            Board. It is pertinent to mention that declarants
            while filing declaration under IDS-2016 were well
            aware of the instalment schedule for payments of
            corresponding dues. Further, the payment schedule,
            being staggered, provided them sufficient time to
            plan their affairs accordingly so as to ensure
            compliance in a timely manner. Hence, failure to
            pay the third instalment for a reason which is solely
            attributable to you does not justify grant of any
            relaxation in the payment after due date.






            3. In view of the above, your request dated
            09.10.2017 to grant permission to deposit third
            instalment of IDS-2016, beyond due date is hereby

WP(C) Nos.1069/2018 & 1070/2018                                 Page 4 of 6
            rejected. This is consistent with the order under
            Section 119 of CBDT dated 28.03.2017 vide F.No.
            225/86/2017-ITA-II wherein delay due to any
            reason attributable to the declarant while making
            payment of first instalment was not considered fit
            for condonation.

            4. This issues with the approval of Member
            (IT&C)."


9.      We have considered and examined the grounds and reasons
given by the two petitioners in their letters seeking extension of time.
The reasons given do not make out a case to interfere with the
impugned order and grant extension of time. Mere involvement in
office work and marketing activities cannot be a good justification and
ground to seek and ask for extension of time. Assertion that the
petitioners just forget 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 petitioners were unable to pay
the amount and thereafter have pleaded and attributed it to loss of
memory.       The time period fixed were mandatory and had to be
adhered to. The petitioners have not made out an extraordinary case
which would have justified invoking writ jurisdiction and grant of
further time beyond the time, even assuming that the time stipulated
under the Scheme could be extended by the Board under Section
119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.          If such excuses are to be



WP(C) Nos.1069/2018 & 1070/2018                                  Page 5 of 6
accepted, then as a routine, extension of time would have to be
granted.

10.     Accordingly, we do not find any good ground and reason to
issue notice in the present writ petitions.

11.     Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ
petitioners would like to file a separate writ petition seeking
adjustment or refund of the amounts paid. They would like to
challenge the provision which stipulates that no refund can be
claimed. We clarify that we have not commented on the question of
refund or adjustment of the amount paid. Dismissal of the present writ
petitions would not operate as constructive res judicata and bar in
filing of fresh writ petitions on these aspects.

12.     With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are
dismissed.



                                                SANJIV KHANNA, J.



                                              CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

FEBRUARY 05, 2018
pk




WP(C) Nos.1069/2018 & 1070/2018                              Page 6 of 6

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting