| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4065 (Cal-HC) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
Article 226
Plea of petitioner for extension of time deserved to be attended to by Revenue Authority under Notification numbered as S.O. No. 4455(E) since such plea was live and pending during the period of subsistence of the Notification entitling the petitioner to retrospective consideration, therefore, issue needed to be remanded back to PCIT to consider the same on merits in the context of observations made.
|
Writ - Non-payment of an instalment by petitioner under Income Tax Declaration Scheme, 2016 - Extension of period for completing payments -
By order, this Court permitted Revenue Authority to revert on the next date with appropriate instructions connected to the Notification dated 13-9-2019 and numbered as S.O. No. 4455(E) of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India. Petitioner submitted that the issue related to the non-payment of third instalment by petitioner under the Income Tax Declaration Scheme, 2016. The third instalment was required to be paid on and by 30-9-2017. Petitioner, although having declared his income under section 183 of Finance Act, 2016 and, such declaration having been acknowledged by the Revenue Authority, petitioner was called upon to pay additional tax plus surcharge and penalty in three instalments. Petitioner had admittedly paid the first two instalments but, due to his illness, claims to have been unable to pay the third instalment within the period initially prescribed. Held: This Court was of the view that neither the Revenue Authority nor petitioner could act during the period prescribed by the Notification dated 13-9-2019 and numbered as S.O. No. 4455(E) without the leave of Court. This Court was of the further view that the plea of petitioner for extension of time deserves to be attended to by Revenue Authority under the Notification dated 13-12-2019 since such plea was live and pending during the period of subsistence of the Notification entitling the petitioner to retrospective consideration. Therefore, issue needed to be remanded back to PCIT to consider the same on merits in the context of the observations made.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Matter remanded
A.Y. :
IN THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
OR Try Reload the Page |