Akil Kureshi, J.

These Petitions involve common question of law. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we may record facts from Writ Petition No.14709 of 2018.

2. Petitioner is an individual. Petitioner has challenged a decision of the Revenue-Authority in not accepting the Petitioner's declaration under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (herein after referred to as Scheme of 2016). Petitioner has further challenged the reassessment notices issued by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years covered under such declaration as well as orders of assessment passed pursuant to such notices. Petitioner has also challenged notices for prosecution issued by the competent authority under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").

3. The Union Legislature framed said Scheme under Section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016, giving an opportunity to the assessees to make declarations under the said Scheme of undisclosed income. Subject to the declarant fulfilling the conditions contained in the said Scheme and acceptance of the declaration by the authority, the declarant would be spared the penalty and prosecution. We would advert to the provisions of the said Scheme in detail later.

4. The Petitioner, desirous of taking benefit of the said Scheme made a common declaration of undisclosed income for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to Assessment Years 2014-15 on 29th September, 2016. The Petitioner declared his un-disclosed income for the subject Assessment Years, as under:-
 

5. It is undisputed that on such declaration, the Petitioner had to pay tax, surcharge and penalty at the rates prescribed under the said Scheme, which worked out as under:-
 

6. According to the Petitioner, he had already paid a sum of Rs.8,19,465/- to the Income Tax Department by way of advance tax, self assessed tax and tax deducted at source. Out of the said sum of Rs.81,54,234/-, therefore, after deducting said sum of Rs.8,19,465/- the Petitioner had to pay the remaining of Rs.73,34,769/-. The Petitioner made such payment on different dates as under:-

"(i) An amount of Rs.18,33,690/- was paid on November 25, 2016 i.e. before the prescribed date of November 30, 2016;

(ii) An amount of Rs.18,33,690/- was paid on March 27, 2017, i.e. before the prescribed date of March 31, 2017;

(iii) Lastly, the balance amount of Rs.36,67,385/-was paid on September 27, 2017."

7. We may note that, the total amount paid by the Petitioner as noted above along with the said sum of Rs.8,19,465/- was short by Rs.4/- as compared to the requirement arising under the said Scheme. Petitioner points out that this short fall of sum of Rs.4/- was on account of pure oversight and calculation error and should not be allowed to defeat the Petitioner's declaration under the said Scheme since the same was otherwise in order in all respects.

8. We may record that, this short fall of Rs.4/- was not the central controversy between the two sides. In other words, had this been the only ground for rejecting Petitioner's declaration, we would have readily granted relief to the Petitioner as prayed. While examining the legal dispute between the two sides, we would eliminate this factor of short fall of Rs.4/-.

9. The controversy between the Petitioner and the department is much deeper and revolves around Petitioner's claim that, advance