Re: Discrimination inrespect of disputed tax in search cases.
Before the introduction of S.153A ,the search assessment was made u/s158 BC of the Act.The tax leviable on the undisclosed income was at60% . There are many cases pending in dispute on such BLOCK ASSESSMENT.
There is a clear discremination under the VSV sheme as the tax rate under the new regime is 305 plus 25% of tax as penalty or 50% thereof if Department is the litigant.
While the search cases are the same under the scheme the assessment falling under the old regime are treated harshly as against assessment under the new regime.
This discrimination should be removed by bringing the assessment under the old scheme on par with assement under the new regime by requiring payment of tax and the related penalty at the same rate to encourage assessees to avail the scheme,
Yes . Your interpretation is right . However the legislature are having the power to frame the legislation . One can refer the judgements in All India Federation of Tax Practioners v .UOI ( 1998) 231 ITR 24 (SC) . All India Federation of tax Prcationers v UOI ( 1997) 228 ITR 68 (Bom) bIn Amit Hemendra Jhaveri v. UOI (2015) 281 CTR 245 / 64 taxmann.com 28 (2016) 380 ITR 60 (Bom.)(HC) the Court held that provision denying benefit to persons who had acquired income or property illegally or were under prosecution and the denial of benefit had nexus with the objective of scheme , classification is not violative of Article 14 and S. 95 is valid. In R.K. Garg v. UOI (1982) 133 ITR 239 (SC) Honourable Supreme Court dealt with the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981 the Court held that . when Parliament adopts a particular mode or method for unearthing unaccounted or black money and considers it to be efficacious, it would not be permissible for Court while exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution to substitute its own decision in place of policy decision taken by Parliament by enacting Scheme .
This issue was also raised At a meeting held on 6-4-2020 by the ITAT , with the Chairman CBDT a specific request was made reconsider the discrimination .
The Parliament has unquestionably a right to formulate the law with a differential benefit for defaults of different nature . But in my humble opinion in the absence of any difference in the nature of default but only a difference in time uneven burden should not be caused by a subsequent legislative measure causing unintended hardship in law.
Let me hope the respected Chairman CBDT may appreciate the unintended burden as of now would be removed and a different treatment due to time period should not be considered as justifying the present position.Significantly it may be noted that the form does not even mention asst u/s158BC of the Act while S.153A/C are mentioned.