JUDGMENT

Akil Kureshi, J. - The Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 28th March, 2017 and 16th October, 2017 as at annexure ''D'' and ''K'' respectively to the Petition.

2. This challenge arises in following background.

(i) Petitioner is an individual. The Petitioner had applied to the competent authority on 28th September, 2016 by making necessary declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme of 2016 (for short, "IDS"). In terms of such declaration, as per the provisions contained in the Scheme, the Petitioner had to deposit a minimum 25% of the total sums payable pursuant to such declaration, latest by 30th November, 2016. The total tax payable by the Petitioner on such declaration was Rs. 17,40,855/along with surcharge and penalty of Rs. 4,35,213/. The Petitioner had to pay a minimum 1 Ath of the total of these two sums latest by 30th November, 2016. The Petitioner could not make the payments.

(ii) The Petitioner, therefore, on 12th December, 2016 wrote the the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short "CBDT"), conveying that her daughter was admitted in hospital on 20th November, 2016 for a delivery. Due to medical complications, she had to be kept in the hospital till 1st December, 2016. On account of said unavoidable circumstances, the Petitioner could not deposit the first installment within the time permitted. She, therefore, requested that the delay may be condoned. She contended that in absence of condonation of delay, her declaration would be treated as invalid/ void resulting into genuine hardship to her. She also stated that she was in a position to make the payment within first week of December, 2016 itself. However, she was advised that, in case the delay is not condoned, such payment would be nonrefundable.

(iii) Since there was no response to this application of the Petitioner by the CBDT, Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8066 of 2017 which was disposed of by an order dated 29th August,2017. The Court directed that the application of the Petitioner be considered in accordance with law and in particular, in light of the Circular of the CBDT dated 28th March, 2017. Pursuant to said directions of the Court, the CBDT passed the order on 16th October, 2017. By the said order, the application of the Petitioner for condonation of delay, was rejected. Petitioner''s contention that her case is covered under the Circular dated 28th March, 2017, was rejected. It was observed that IDS was the opportunity provided by the Government to noncompliant tax payers to come clean after paying tax at the higher rate. Granting any further relaxation under the IDS, would demotivate the honest tax payers who are paying taxes promptly. Under the circumstances, the board was of the opinion that no relaxation in the payment schedule provided under the IDS can be granted. It was also stated that this would be in consonance with the Circular dated 28th March, 2017 in which, delay on account of personal reasons would not be considered the fit case for condonation of delay.

3. Petitioner has, therefore, in the present Petition challenged the said order dated 17th October, 2017 passed by the Board. The Petitioner has also challenged the validity of the CBDT Circular dated 28th March, 2017.

4. Appearing for the Petitioner, learned Counsel Shri Naniwadekar, raised following contentions:

(i) The Petitioner had made out grounds for not being able to pay the installment in time. The reasons were genuine and beyond the control of the Petitioner. The delay, therefore, ought to have been condoned by the board in exercise of its power under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act").

(ii) Counsel placed reliance on the earlier order passed by this Court on 29th August, 2017 in Writ Petition filed by the present Petitioner and contended that, the board failed to take into account observations made by the Court in the said order.

(iii) Counsel contended that the case of the Petitioner was covered