VASANTLAL TULSIDAS AGRAWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions are raising a common question and admitted facts being common are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts narrated in Spl.C.A.No. 4825 of 1998 ,are exactly similar in other petition viz. Spl.C.A.No.4827 of 1998. They are as under: Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme 1997 (VDIS for short) was made operative and it was to remain in force till 31.12.1997. For seeking the benefit under the Scheme,one was required to tender a form as prescribed under sub section 1 of section 65 of the Finance Act 1997, copy of which is produced at exh A/1. In clause 5 of the said form, the assessee was required to disclose the amount of income declared in figures and words. He was also required to disclose the assessment year to which the income relates. In clause 6, the total amount of voluntarily declared income was required to be mentioned; while in clause 7, the tax payable thereon was required to be mentioned calculated at the rate of 30 percent in the case of other than companies and firms. Again in clause 9, balance tax payable was required to be mentioned. This would apply in a case, if the tax is paid as mentioned in clause 8. In the instant case, the petitioner submitted a form disclosing Rs. 5,00,000.00 as an amount of income declared under the Scheme. In the form so far as the tax payable thereon is concerned, it was specifically stated that Rs. 1,50,000.00 is the tax payable at the rate of 30 percent on the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as the total voluntarily disclosed income. In clause No. 9, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000.00 is shown. It appears that by mistake the petitioner deposited a Sum of Rs. 5,00,000/lacs. Interestingly, the receipt issued by CIT, Surat is produced at Annexure.B which is dated 29.1.1998, also clearly indicates that the petitioner declared a sum of Rs. 5,00,000.00 as the amount of income for A.Y. 1988-89 to 1997-98. In clause 6, the tax payable on the income declared has been specifically mentioned as Rs. 1,50,000.00. Against clause 7, the amount of tax paid , it is mentioned as Rs. 5,00,000.00. The petitioner, realising that he has committed a mistake in making over payment, he immediately addressed a letter Exh.C to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat on 2.1.1998 pointing out the relevant clauses of the Scheme and stating that he has paid an excess amount of Rs.3,50,000.00 and therefore, the same should be refunded. On behalf of CIT, Surat, a letter was written to the petitioner on 25.3.1998 informing that the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the language of the Scheme does not envisage to allow refund of any tax in pursuance of the declaration made under the Scheme. By writing these four lines letter the authorities rejected the application of the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Shah learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner under a mistake made the payment of Rs. 5,00,000.00 instead of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Exh,.A/1 filled in by the petitioner clearly indicates that the amount of income declared by the petitioner was Rs. 5,00,000.00 and tax to be paid thereon was Rs. 1,50,000.00. Even exh. B the receipt clearly reveals the said aspect. According to him under a bonafide belief a sum of Rs.. 5,00,000.00 was paid. But it does not mean that the revenue can come out with a version that the amount is not refundable in view of section 70 of the scheme. He submitted that apart from the Scheme, whenever there is a bonafide mistake, the respondent department is required to take a corrective measure so that the mistake is corrected and a citizen is not required to suffer.