The self-assessment presented was illegal, according to the Jharkhand High Court, which dismissed the writ suit. Jay Prakash Singhania, the writ petitioner, is an income tax department regular taxpayer.
In order to declare unreported income in accordance with the mode and manner specified under Section 183 of the Income Tax Act, the Government of India framed a regulation known as the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, using the authority granted by Section 199 of the Finance Act, 2016. This regulation is now in effect.
The writ petitioner has made such a submission on the basis that the declaration provided by the writ petitioner will be deemed to be non-est in the eyes of the law due to deeming provision as under SubSection 3 of Section 187 of the Finance Act, 2016 once the declaration so furnished by the writ petitioner due to non-deposit of the amount in its entirety as needed under the income tax Act.
According to Kumar Vaibhav, the attorney representing the Revenue, the writ petition lacks merit because the petitioner was required to deposit the entire amount in three instalments by the due date once he made a declaration regarding his escape income by using the provisions of Section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016.
The applicant’s case is that he has filed the tax on the self-assessment that is under section 183 as observed by the court of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Subhash Chand, however his code of making a declaration directed that the self-assessment provided via the applicant does not reveal to be as per the law and is the cause that the declaration to that effect would have been furnished and lastly renders to assessing the taxpayer through choosing the utilization of Section 153A of the Act of 1961’s provision.
Read also: ITAT: No Tax Penalty U/S 271B If Audit Report & ITR Submitted Before Assessment
The Court further stated that, based on the circumstances of the case, the petitioner’s behaviour cannot be regarded suitable for issuing a direction for payment of interest in favour of the writ petitioner, even if this Court has directed for adjustment of the sum thus deposited.
|Case Title||Jay Prakash Singhania vs The Union of India|
|Citation||W.P.(T) No. 4910 of 2018|
|Counsel for Appellant||Mr Sumeet Gadodia, Mrs Shilpi Sandil|
|Counsel for Respondent||Mr Kumar Vaibhav|
|Jharkhand HC||Read Order|