LAXMI MITTAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dt. 27th July, 1998, passed by the CIT, Patiala, by which the declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, has been "treated as non est. " A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The Government of India had introduced the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997. Under this scheme a persons entitled to make the declaration of the income by 31st December, 1997. Thereafter, under s. 67 of the scheme, the tax and interest, etc. , if any, had to be paid within three months. The petitioner made a declaration of an amount of Rs. 20,42,274. This declaration was made on 27th December, 1997. Along with the declaration, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 2,682 by way of tax. The remaining amount of tax, viz. , Rs. 5,50,000 could have been deposited on or before 27th March, 1998. The petitioner submits that when she was going to get the money for making the deposit, she had an accident. Along with her husband, she was admitted to a nursing home. A copy of the certificate dt. 28th March, 1998, issued by Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma has been produced as annexure-P-3. In this situation, the deposit could not be made on 27th March, 1998. The amount of Rs. 5,50,000 along with Rs. 33,000 as interest was actually deposited on 30th March, 1998. Thus, according to the respondent, there was a delay of three days. On this account, the declaration made by the petitioner has been treated as non est. The petitioner claims that the delay had occurred on account of reasons totally beyond her control. Under the circular dt. 3rd September, 1998, the authority has the discretion to extend the period. In the present case also the discretion should have been exercised. Its failure to do so is arbitrary and unfair.

(3.) The respondent contests the petitioner's claim and maintains that in view of the provisions of s. 67 of the scheme the deposit had to be made within three months. On account of failure, the declaration is non est. Thus, the period cannot be extended and the order passed by the CIT is legal and valid.