Wpt v. Union Of India
High Court
12 Sep 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Wpt v. Union Of India
Date of order
12 Sep 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wpt v. Union Of India, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Decision: 6)With the aforesaid observation(s), the petition is disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPT No. 129 of 2018
Vijendra Singh S/o Late Shri Vijay Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o AmeriRoad, Near Saint Francis School, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur DistrictBilaspur Chhattisgarh, Office - Bedford Earth Movers , Raipur Road ,Rajiv Gandhi Chowk Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District :Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Income Tax)Department Of Revenue Secretariat, New Delhi., District: New Delhi,Delhi Department Of Revenue Secretariat, New Delhi., District: New Delhi,Delhi
2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes , Through The Secretary, North Block,New Delhi. New Delhi.
3. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan VyaparVihar Tarbahar Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District: Bilaspur,Chhattisgarh Vihar Tarbahar Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District: Bilaspur,Chhattisgarh
4. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 (1), Present Address-Income Tax Office, Mahima Complex, Vyapar Vihar, Tarbahar, BilaspurDistrict Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.Income Tax Office, Mahima Complex, Vyapar Vihar, Tarbahar, BilaspurDistrict Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner: Mr. S. Rajeswsara Rao, AdvocateFor Respective Respondents :Mr. Hemant Agrawal, Advocate andFor Respective Respondents :Mr. Hemant Agrawal, Advocate and
Mr. Hemant Agrawal, Advocate andMr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, AdvocateMr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate
12.09.2023
Heard.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyOrder on Board
1)The petitioner has challenged the rejection of an application forcondonation of delay in payment of the first installment of tax inrespect of income declared under ‘the Income DeclarationScheme, 2016 (for short ‘the IDS -2016’). condonation of delay in payment of the first installment of tax inrespect of income declared under ‘the Income DeclarationScheme, 2016 (for short ‘the IDS -2016’).
2)Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitionerhad already deposited the amount of tax including the interest on31.01.2020 in pursuance of the Notification No. S.O. 4455(E) onhad already deposited the amount of tax including the interest on31.01.2020 in pursuance of the Notification No. S.O. 4455(E) on
Rekha
13.12.2019. He would further submit that as the petitioner hasalready deposited the amount of tax along with the interest, thedepartment may be directed to issue a certificate of payment of taxunder IDS-2016.
3)On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue would submitthat if the petitioner has already deposited the amount of tax alongwith the interest, the Department will certainly decide theapplication of the petitioner according to the existing policy andrules made thereunder. that if the petitioner has already deposited the amount of tax alongwith the interest, the Department will certainly decide theapplication of the petitioner according to the existing policy andrules made thereunder.
4)I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thedocuments.documents.
Rekha
13.12.2019. He would further submit that as the petitioner hasalready deposited the amount of tax along with the interest, thedepartment may be directed to issue a certificate of payment of taxunder IDS-2016.
3)On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue would submitthat if the petitioner has already deposited the amount of tax alongwith the interest, the Department will certainly decide theapplication of the petitioner according to the existing policy andrules made thereunder. that if the petitioner has already deposited the amount of tax alongwith the interest, the Department will certainly decide theapplication of the petitioner according to the existing policy andrules made thereunder.
4)I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thedocuments.documents.
5)The petitioner had filed this petition against the rejection of anapplication for condonation of delay in payment of the firstinstallment of tax in respect of income declared under IDS-2016.During the pendency of this petition, on 31.01.2020 the petitionerdeposited the entire amount of tax including the interest and in thisregard, a counterfoil of the challan has been produced andannexed along with this petition. As the petitioner has alreadydeposited the amount of tax including the interest, the Revenue isdirected to verify the fact and issue an appropriate certificateaccording to the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 preferablywithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.application for condonation of delay in payment of the firstinstallment of tax in respect of income declared under IDS-2016.During the pendency of this petition, on 31.01.2020 the petitionerdeposited the entire amount of tax including the interest and in thisregard, a counterfoil of the challan has been produced andannexed along with this petition. As the petitioner has alreadydeposited the amount of tax including the interest, the Revenue isdirected to verify the fact and issue an appropriate certificateaccording to the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 preferablywithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.
6)With the aforesaid observation(s), the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.