S.gengaraman v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641 018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.No.18432 of 2004and W.P.M.P.No.21949 of 2004 S.Gengaraman ...Petitioner Vs 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641 018. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I(4) 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641 018. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamusto call for the records in C.No.346/KVSS/98-99/IT/CBE dated14.05.2001 of the first respondent, quash the same and directthe first respondent to accept the petitioner's declarationunder the Samadhan Scheme. For Petitioner : Mrs.Mallika SrinivasanFor Respondents : Mr.A.N.R.Prathap, Government Advocate (Taxes) ORDER This writ petition has been filed to set aside theproceedings of the first respondent in C.No.346/KVSS/98-99/IT/CBE dated 14.05.2001 and to direct the first respondent toaccept the petitioner's declaration under the Samadhan Scheme. 2.The case of the petitioner is that in respect of theassessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94, he was assessed to incometax. There were tax arrears of Rs.10,235/- for the assessmentyear 1992-93 and Rs.2,46,040/- for the assessment year 1993-94.Apart from these, interest amounts were also levied by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department, amounting to Rs.25,834/- and Rs.3,20,824/- for theassessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively. Thepetitioner filed appeals against the aforesaid assessments,before the appellate authorities. When these appeals werepending, the Government of India introduced a Kar Vivad SamadhanScheme and the petitioner was entitled to avail the benefit ofthe said Scheme. The petitioner also filed required declarationsfor availing the benefit and thereafter a Certificate ofIntimation under Section 90(1) of the Finance (II) Act, 1998 wasissued to the petitioner determining the total amount payable atRs.1,61,658/-. As per the instructions, the petitioner madepayment of a sum of Rs.1,61,658/- within the time specifiedthereon, with a bona fide belief that his declaration would beaccepted. While so, another letter dated 24.05.1999 was receivedfrom the Income Tax Officer (Headquarters) (Tech), calling uponthe petitioner to produce proof of having made the abovepayment. He also produced the proof, but he received a challanfrom the Department to pay a further sum of Rs.15,960/-.Subsequently, he also paid the said sum. While so, he received aletter dated 14.05.2001 stating that his declaration filed underthe Samadhan Scheme was rejected, since he had not paid theadditional amount of Rs.15,960/- within the specified timelimit. Hence, this writ petition. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted thatin so far as the petitioner had complied with the originalcertificate issued by the first respondent, all the requirementsof the Scheme have been satisfied and the rejection of thedeclaration of the petitioner is totally unjustified in law. Theadditional demand was paid by the petitioner only with a view tocooperate with the Department, when the fact remained that it isnot a valid demand. 4.This Court has also heard the submissions made by thelearned Government Advocate (Taxes) on the submissions made bythe learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.Under similar circumstances, this Court has passed anorder in the case of Sri Balaji Finance v. Income-tax Officer,reported in [2011] taxmann.com 121 (Madras), in which it isstated that payment of amount by assessee beyond 30 days butwithin a reasonable time as per amendment order would satisfythe requirements of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Therelevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder: 4.This Court has also heard the submissions made by thelearned Government Advocate (Taxes) on the submissions made bythe learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.Under similar circumstances, this Court has passed anorder in the case of Sri Balaji Finance v. Income-tax Officer,reported in [2011] taxmann.com 121 (Madras), in which it isstated that payment of amount by assessee beyond 30 days butwithin a reasonable time as per amendment order would satisfythe requirements of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Therelevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder: “When the Parliament itself has not prescribedany such period of limitation both for the authorityto pass an amendment order and for the declarant tomake payment, such period of limitation cannot beassumed as it is sought to be done by the learnedany such period of limitation both for the authorityto pass an amendment order and for the declarant tomake payment, such period of limitation cannot beassumed as it is sought to be done by the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel for the respondent. At the same time, itcannot be said that the declarant at his free will,can make payment at any time. It can only be saidthat the payment should be made within a reasonabletime or within a time to be stipulated in the orderitself. In the cases on hand, as pointed out by thelearned counsel for the petitioners, in the amendmentorders, there was nothing said about the time withinwhich the amounts should be paid. Therefore, in myconsidered opinion, the payment of the amounts by thepetitioners beyond 30 days but within a reasonabletime as per the amendment orders satisfies therequirements of the scheme. Therefore, they areentitled for the certificate under Section 90(2) ofthe Act.” 6.Applying the principles enunciated in the above decisionto the facts of the present case, the writ petition is allowedand the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent isdirected to issue necessary certificate under Section 90(2) ofthe Finance Act, 1998 to the petitioner, within a period of twomonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Nocosts. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition isclosed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) Sub Assistant Registrar //True Copy// KMTo 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641 018. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I(4) 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641 018. +1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.22862 +1cc to Mr.N.Muthukumar, Advocate, S.R.No.23395 RR(CO)KKV/15/06/2020 W.P.No.18432 of 2004and W.P.M.P.No.21949 of 2004