ELANGO INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the first respondent dt. 29th Feb., 2000, informing the petitioner that their payment under VDIS is belated by three days and the delay cannot be condoned by the designated authority, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and direct the first respondent to issue a certificate for payment of Rs. 1,48,400 paid by the petitioner on 30th March, 1998, under VDIS' 97, for the asst. yr. 1995 -96 by condoning three days delay in payment and further quash the demand notice dt. 12th March, 2002.

(2.) LEARNED junior standing counsel appearing for the respondents, even at the outset, points out that the order passed by the first respondent which is under challenge, is perfectly in order and, as rightly said, the designated authority has no power to condone the delay. In this case, admittedly, the date of filing of the declaration is 27th Dec., 1997 and the last date for payment of tax expires on 27th March, 1998. The petitioner has made the payment only on 30th March, 1998 i.e., after 3 days. In the absence of any provision for condonation, I am of the view that the first respondent is right in rejecting the request of the petitioner stating that the payment is belated by 3 days. Learned counsel for the Revenue has also brought to my notice a decision of R. Jayasimha Babu, J., in M. Kuppan v. CIT : [2001]249ITR543(Mad) . The learned Judge while considering the very same scheme, namely, Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, and in the light of the provisions therein, has held that the CIT was not given any discretionary power under the scheme to condone the delay in making the payment, and even if it could be held that such discretion was available, the explanation offered by the petitioner could not be accepted as affording justification for the delay. Learned junior standing counsel for the respondents has also brought to my notice that the decision of the R. Jayasimha Babu, J., (cited supra) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Hemalatha Gargya v. CIT.