Delhi High Court
Meena Rastogi vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes, & ... on 9 February, 2018
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1219/2018, CM Nos.5050-5051/2018
Date of decision: 9th February, 2018.
MEENA RASTOGI ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv.
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Writ petitioner Meena Rastogi is wife of Dal Chandra Rastogi
and mother of Siddharth Rastogi.
2. Dal Chandra Rastogi and Siddharth Rastogi had filed Writ
Petitions for identical and similar relief, i.e., for extension of time for
payment of third or last installment on the undisclosed income under
the Income Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016, introduced vide Finance
Act, 2016. By common order dated 5th February, 2018, we have
dismissed W.P.(C) 1069/2018 filed by Siddharth Rastogi and W.P.(C)
1070/2018 filed by Dal Chandra Rastogi. The present writ petition
would also meet the same fate.
3. Meena Rastogi had filed declaration of undisclosed income of
Rs.2,98,04,595/- under the Income Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016 in
terms of the Finance Act, 2016.
4. Total amount payable by the petitioner towards tax, surcharge
and penalty on the aforesaid declaration was Rs.1,34,12,069/-.
5. The petitioner paid the first two installments of Rs.33,53,018/-
each, at the rate of 25% of the total tax, surcharge and penalty payable.
In other words, the petitioner had paid 50% of the total amount
payable.
6. The petitioner did not pay the third installment, which was the
remaining 50% of the liability, amounting to Rs.67,06,033/-, due and
payable on or before 30th September, 2017.
7. The petitioner, vide letter dated 9th October, 2017 to the
Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, had sought and prayed for
extension of time to pay the third installment. Relevant portion of the
said letter reads:-
"I Meena Rastogi W/o Sh D.C. Rastogi R/o B-53,
Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi (senior citizen)
having PAN No. AACPR2387K submitted the
declaration under Section 183 of The Finance Act
2016. The declaration was duly acknowledged vide
Form 2 dated 29.09.2016 showing undisclosed
income of Rs.2,98,04,595/- (copy enclosed). The
total tax, surcharge and penalty due on this income
payable in three instalments was as under:
Tax : 8941379/-
Surcharge : 2235345/-
Penalty : 2235345/-
I paid the following first two installments as under:
On 30.11.2016 : 3353018/-
On 29.03.17 : 3353018/-
The third installment of Rs. 67060331/- was payable
on or before 30.09.2016. This installment could not be
paid due to the reason that I am 70 years old lady
having ill health which became hurdle in my day-to-
day work. Since, there was a gap of 6-months between
2nd and 3rd installment to deposit the tax, it slipped
from my mind to deposit the same. I have already paid
50% of total tax due in time and would have deposited
the same, had I remember. Under these circumstances,
I request you that I may be allowed to deposit the
balance 50% tax and my declaration may please be
accepted.
8. The letter, it is stated, was followed by a reminder dated 3rd
November, 2017. The reasons given by Meena Rastogi in the
aforesaid letter were similar to the reasons given by Dal Chandra
Rastogi and Siddharth Rastogi.
9. By letter dated 29th November, 2017, request for extension of
time for payment/deposit of third installment of tax, surcharge and
penalty payable under the Income Tax Declaration Scheme, 2016 was
rejected. We would quote the letter dated 29th November, 2017 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
installment of IDS-2016, beyond the due date on
ground of inadvertence is ' hereby rejected. This is
consistent with the order under section 119 of
CBDT dated 28.03.2017 vide F. No. 225/86/2017-
ITA-I1 wherein delay due to any reason attributable
to the declarant while making payment of first
installment was not considered fit for condonation.
4. This issues with the approval of Member
(IT&C)."
10. We have considered and examined the grounds and reasons
given by the petitioner in her letters seeking extension of time. The
reasons given by the petitioner do not make out a case to interfere with
the impugned order and grant extension of time. The ground taken by
the petitioner, that she is 70 years of age and suffering from ill health
which had become a hurdle in her day-to-day work, cannot be a
ground to seek an extension of time. Assertion that the petitioner
merely forgot 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 petitioner was unable to pay the amount, and
thereafter has pleaded and attributed it to loss of memory. The time
period fixed was mandatory and had to be adhered to. The petitioner
has not made out an extraordinary case which would have justified
invoking writ jurisdiction and grant of extension beyond the stipulated
time, even assuming that the fixed period of time stipulated under the
Scheme could be extended by the Board under Section 119(2) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961. If such excuses were to be accepted, then
extension of time would have to be granted as a routine in other cases
as well.
11. Accordingly, we do not find any good ground and reason to
issue notice in the present writ petition.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
would like to file a separate writ petition seeking adjustment or refund
of the amounts paid. She 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 the filing of fresh writ petition on
these aspects.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
FEBRUARY 09, 2018
b
