ATMJIT SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE see no legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned single judge (see [2001] 247 ITR 356) holding that in view of non-compliance of Section 67(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, the declaration filed by the writ petitioner shall be deemed to be non est under the Scheme by virtue of the explicit declaration contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 67. The appellant ought to have paid the tax with interest on or before March 27, 1998. But, she paid the tax with interest only on March 31, 1998. As observed by the learned single judge, when the language in Sub-sections (1) and (2) is specific and clear, it is not possible to give any benefit to the appellant by overlooking the delay of three days. If such benefit is given to the appellant, it amounts to departing from the terms of the Scheme which does not contemplate condonation of delay by embarking on an enquiry whether there was sufficient cause or not for the belated payment or for belated submission of the declaration. The Scheme has advisedly prescribed a particular outer limit for adhering to various steps contemplated therein. In our view, it is impermissible to alter the time schedules by implying a provision to condone the delay.

(2.) IF there is possibility of more than one construction, probably this court would have leaned in favour of placing such construction as to give benefit to the taxpayer in deserving cases. But, as already observed, the language employed in the Scheme and the features spelt out of the Scheme are crystal clear and do not admit of different interpretations.