By K. B. Bhujle
Advocate
Kumudam Publications Pvt. Ltd. vs. CBDT; 393 ITR 599
(Del):
For the A. Y. 2010-11 onwards, the assessee company did not
file returns due to non-appointment of statutory auditor and certain internal
disputes in the company which led to litigations. It deposited the advance tax
and the tax deducted at source and Rs. 16,49,23,433 had been paid towards tax
liability by or on behalf of it. Anticipating that proceedings might be
initiated by the Department for its failure to file returns u/s. 139, the
assessee applied u/s. 119(2)(b) and sought permission to file returns ”based on
the unaudited accounts or in any other manner”. Pending disposal of the
application, the assessee also made a declaration under the Income Disclosure
Scheme, 2016 for all the assessment years on the basis of its unaudited
accounts. The details of the total tax payable including the interest and
penalty under the Scheme was Rs. 19.60 crore against which the advance tax paid
and the tax deducted at source to its benefit was Rs. 16.49 crore and the net
due of Rs. 3.11 crore, after giving credit to the sums paid, were disclosed by
the assessee in its declaration. In response to the declaration, the assessee
received an order from the Principal Commissioner demanding tax of Rs. 19.60
crore. The assesee’s representation and reminder letters to the Department and
e-mails to the Chairman CBDT requesting clarification that the net tax payable
was Rs. 3.11 crore only, were not responded to.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the
assessee and held as under:
“i) There was no bar,
express or implied which precluded the reckoning or taking into account of
previously paid amounts which has nexus with the period sought to be covered by
the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. There should be something which provides a
clear insight that Parliament wished that past amounts were not to be reckoned
at all for purpose of payments. All that the words of the statute enjoined were
that the tax and surcharge amounts under the Scheme “shall be paid on or before
a date to be notified”. Those words necessarily referred to all payments and
were not limited in their meaning to what was paid immediately before, or, in
the proximity of the declaration filed.
ii) The provisions of
section 182 of the Finance Act, 2016 stated that for the purposes of the Income
Declaration Scheme, 2016, the undefined terms and expressions should be
understood in terms of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by incorporating those into
the 2016 Act and the Scheme.
iii) “Undisclosed
income” which was the foundational provision to be invoked by the declarant,
thus, was based on the definition in section 132(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. The
only bar discernible under the scheme as evident from section 189 of the 2016
Act was that “a declarant under the Scheme shall not be entitled, in respect of
undisclosed income declared or any amount of tax and surcharge paid thereon, to
reopen any assessment or reassessment made under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or
the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, or claim any setoff or relief in any appeal, reference
or any other proceeding in relation to any such assessment”. Therefore, there
was no bar for an assessee or declarant to claim credit of advance tax amounts
paid previously which pertained to the assessment years or periods for which it
sought benefits under the Scheme, 2016.
iv) The respondents were
directed to process the assessee’s application under the 2016 Scheme giving
adjustment or credit to the amounts paid as advance tax and tax deducted at
source to its account.”
