Major Of Age v. Principle Commissioner Of Income

1 wp-1122-17dtd. 07.10.2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 1122 OF 2017 Goa Cricket Association,Goa Cricket Academy,Behind Directorate of Education,Porvorim, Goa.Through its Hon. Secretary,Shri DeshKinlekar, Major of age. ... Petitioner Versus 1. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Office of the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, AayakarBhavan, Plot No.5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa 403001. 2. Income Tax Officer (HQ)-1, Office of the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, AayakarBhavan, Plot No.5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa 403001. ... Respondents Mr. S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Kamat,Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Tania Ferreira, Advocate holding for Ms. Amira Razaq, Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 2 wp-1122-17dtd. 07.10.2019 Coram : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ., M. S. SONAK, J. th October, 2019. Date : 7 ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per Pradeep Nandrajog, CJ.]: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2.Compilation of Judgments required to be submitted interms of the previous order dated 24.09.2019 has not been filed. 3.Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners relied upon thedecision reported as (1999) 238 ITR 1997 Smt. Laxmi Mittal v/s.Commissioner of Income Tax. The said decision relates to theVoluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997. Laxmi Mittal hadmade a declaration of her income by the stipulated dated31.12.1997. Amount payable was assessed. As per Section 67 of theScheme the amounts payable had to be deposited in the account ofthe Income Tax authorities within 3 months. Part deposit was madeby Laxmi Mittal within stipulated time. She met with an accident.She was admitted to a nursing home. She could not pay full amountwithin the stipulated time. The Department took a view that onaccount of not depositing full tax within the time granted thedeclaration was non est. Legal issue which arose before the DivisionBench was: whether the declaration was non est notwithstanding 3 wp-1122-17dtd. 07.10.2019 Laxmi Mittal being physically incapacitated to pay the amounts asdetermined within 3 months. 4.Noting that the Section did not lay down as inflexiblerule according to which if deposit was not made within 3 months thedeclaration was non-est as also the deposits to be made would benon-est, relief was granted to Laxmi Mittal. Tax with interest wasmade payable on or before March 31.03.1998. 5. Now, time to note the relevant facts of the instant Petition. 6.The Petitioner Goa Cricket Association is affiliated tothe Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) and receives fundsfrom the BCCI to carry out its activites which would obviouslyinclude paying tax dues under the income tax laws. Under the DirectTax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 on a declaration being made,complying with the requirements of the Scheme, the Income TaxDepartment proceeded to issue the necessary certificates on09.03.2017 pertaining to the assessment years 2006-07 till 2012-13requiring the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.14,03,58,150/- on orbefore 07.04.2017. The problem which the Writ Petitioner faced wasthe pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court in CivilAppeal No. 4236 of 2014 and Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2015. 4 wp-1122-17dtd. 07.10.2019 Petition. 6.The Petitioner Goa Cricket Association is affiliated tothe Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) and receives fundsfrom the BCCI to carry out its activites which would obviouslyinclude paying tax dues under the income tax laws. Under the DirectTax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 on a declaration being made,complying with the requirements of the Scheme, the Income TaxDepartment proceeded to issue the necessary certificates on09.03.2017 pertaining to the assessment years 2006-07 till 2012-13requiring the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.14,03,58,150/- on orbefore 07.04.2017. The problem which the Writ Petitioner faced wasthe pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court in CivilAppeal No. 4236 of 2014 and Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2015. 4 wp-1122-17dtd. 07.10.2019 Noting that the state of affairs in the game of Cricket in India as wasbeing conducted by the BCCI warranted transparency and greateraccountability, the Supreme Court passed an order on 07.10.2016injuncting the BCCI from paying money to the State CricketAssociations. This order was continued by the order dated21.10.2016. The orders passed by the Supreme Court were in forcemuch beyond even 07.04.2017. On 28.09.2017 the Petitionerswrote to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax informing that ifan order was passed, BCCI would directly pay the tax payable in theaccount of the Income Tax Department. The response received wason 22.11.2017 informing that law does not empower the taxauthorities to extend the time by which the payments could be made. 7.This resulted in the instant Writ Petition being filed andneedless to state the response is that under the Scheme nodiscretionary power is vested in the designated authority to extendtime for making payment. 8.The aforenoted facts bring out that the Petitioner wasincapacitated, for reasons beyond its control and power to make thenecessary payments by 07.04.2017. Not only equities, on theprinciple of law that a person should not be visited with civilconsequence nor should be denuded valuable rights which haveaccrued for no fault of the person concerned, leads us to dispose of 5 wp-1122-17dtd. 07.10.2019 the Petition directing that if on behalf of the Petitioner the BCCItenders by filling up the challan and tenders Rs.14,03,58,150/-together with interest as contemplated by the tax law for latepayment, the said sum would be received by the Respondents to thecredit of the Petitioner and would be in satisfaction of the taxpayment certificates dated 09.03.2017 for the assement years 2006-07 till 2012-13. The declaratory order coupled with the mandamuswould endure for a period of 180 days from today, meaning therebythe Petitioner has to work it out with BCCI for BCCI to act onbehalf of the Petitioner within 180 days. If payment is nottransmitted by the BCCI to the Respondents within 180 days fromtoday, the declaration and mandamus issued shall be non-enforceableby the Petitioner. 9.Parties to bear their own costs. M. S. SONAK, J. CHIEF JUSTICE msr.