The Jharkhand High Court quashed writ petition on the ground that the self-assessment shown was not in accordance with the law.
The writ petitioner, Jay Prakash Singhania, is regular assessee under the Income Tax Department. The Government of India has framed a regulation known as the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, in exercise of power conferred under Section 199 of the Finance Act, 2016, which has been brought in force for declaration of undisclosed income on the basis of the mode and manner stipulated under Section 183 of the Income Tax Act.
The writ petitioner has made such submission on the ground that once the declaration so furnished by the writ petitioner due to non-deposit of the amount in entirety as required under the Finance Act, 2016 will be said to be non est in the eye of law due to deeming provision as under SubSection 3 of Section 187 of the Finance Act, 2016.
Kumar Vaibhav, Counsel appearing for the Revenue, has submitted that the writ petition is having no merit due to the reason that once the petitioner has given declaration regarding his escape income by taking recourse of the provision of Section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 and in pursuance thereto, he was to deposit the amount in entirety in three instalments within the due date.
The Court of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Subhash Chand noted that the case of the petitioner is that he has paid the tax on self-assessment i.e., under the provision of Section 183 but his conduct of giving declaration itself suggest and shows that the self-assessment shown by the petitioner is not found to be in accordance with law and that is the reason the declaration to that effect has been given and that ultimately led to assessing the assessee by taking recourse of the provision of Section 153A of the Act, 1961.
The Court further observed that “This Court, in view of the facts of the given case, is of the view that the conduct of the petitioner cannot be considered to be proper for issuance of a direction for payment of interest in favour of the writ petitioner even if this Court has directed for adjustment of the amount so deposited.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
