(1.) THE petitioner contends that the delay in making the deposit should not come in the way of the declaration being accepted by the authorities. THE declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme was filed on December 23, 1997. THE tax had to be paid within 90 days by March 23, 1998. It is not the case of the petitioner that any steps had been taken for paying the tax before that date. It was only on March 24, 1998, that the petitioner purchased a draft for the amount of tax payable and that draft was credited to the account of the Income-tax Department on March 27, 1998.
(2.) COUNSEL submitted that the reason for the delay has now been set out in the affidavit filed with the petition, the reason being that the petitioner was in financial difficulties. That reason cannot be regarded as acceptable when the voluntary disclosure scheme is one which provided immunity for interest and penalties for the income that had been suppressed, subject to the terms of the scheme being complied with. Though the contents of the scheme were well known, the petitioner's declaration was filed but money was not deposited along with that declaration. The petitioner chose to take advantage of the 30 days period for payment, and after having exhausted that period, the petitioner bestirred himself by going to the bank and purchasing a draft some thing he should have done earlier. The explanation now offered in the writ petition cannot, in the circumstances, be accepted as affording justification for the delay.
(3.) THUS, the Division Bench upheld the contention of the Revenue that the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme is a special scheme and that unless the persons comply with the requirements of that scheme, the benefit cannot be given and that the violation of the procedure prescribed in the scheme would disentitle the persons from claiming the benefit. The Division Bench, however, declined to interfere with the order of the learned single judge on the ground that the order was a discretionary one.