ll Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT, Special Civil Application No. 15075 Of 2015, Dated-15.09.2015 After Punjab & Haryana High Court the Gujarat High Court also directs CBDT to extend the due date for Filing of ITR to October 31st in its Judgement today. -
copy of judgement of punjab and haryana high court
--
As the CBDT delayed issued the Income-tax Return Forms, the due date for filing the returns is extended to 31.10.2015. CBDT directed to issue an appropriate order u/s 119
In view of the above, taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate to extend the due date for e-filing of returns upto 31st October 2015 for which the CBDT shall issue appropriate notification/instructions under Section 119 of the Act. Direction is also issued to the respondents to ensure that the forms etc. which are to be prescribed for the audit report and for e-filing the returns should ordinarily be made available on the first day of April of the assessment year
Vishal Garg vs. UOI (P&H High Court)
| COURT: | P&H High Court |
| CORAM: | Ajay Kumar Mittal J, Ramendra Jain J |
| SECTION(S): | 119, 139(1) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | Due date, Return of Income |
| COUNSEL: | Hitesh Kaplish |
| DATE: | September 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 29, 2015 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2015-16 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| As the CBDT delayed issued the Income-tax Return Forms, the due date for filing the returns is extended to 31.10.2015. CBDT directed to issue an appropriate order u/s 119 | |
The Press Release dated 9.9.2015 issued by the CBDT whereby the decision was taken not to extend the date for filing of returns due by 30.9.2015 for the assessment year 2015-16 for certain categories of assessees including companies, firms and individuals engaged in proprietary business/profession etc. whose accounts are required to be audited in terms of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was challenged. It was submitted that it was only after 1.8.2015, 2.8.2015 and 7.8.2015 that the income tax return Forms No. 4, 5 and 6 respectively were available for downloading by the assessees and that in such circumstances, the last date fixed for e-filing of income tax return for the assessment year 2015-16 by the assessees, being 30.9.2015 is unreasonable and is liable to be extended. HELD by the High Court upholding the plea:
(i) Form Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were prescribed on 1st, 2nd and 7th of August 2015 respectively when the audited accounts were required to be appended for e-filing of the return under Sections 139C and 139D of the Act. Further, it has been admitted by the respondent department in the office memorandum dated 24.9.2015 that since returns in ITRs 4, 5 and 6 were mandatorily required to be e-filed, no assessees in these categories could have filed their returns of income for the assessment year 2015-16 before 1st, 2nd and 7th of August 2015 respectively. Under Section 119 of the Act, the Board has specific powers to pass general or special orders in respect of any class or class of cases by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the Act which also includes Section 139 thereof. For avoiding the genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, the Board if considers desirable and expedient, by general or special order, it can issue such orders, instructions and direction for proper administration of this Act. All such authorities engaged in execution of the Act are expected to follow the same. The Board has not only to see the public interest for so doing but also for avoiding the genuine hardship in any particular case or class of cases when such powers can be exercised. It was not disputed by learned counsel for the revenue that the forms were not available on the very first day of the assessment year as required. Learned counsel for the revenue could not furnish any satisfactory explanation or justification for not prescribing Forms 4, 5 and 6 prior to 1st, 2nd and 7th August, 2015 respectively. The plea of the department that there were only minor changes in the forms is not justified. Thus, the period required for e-filing of the return is held to be not reasonable.
(ii) In view of the above, taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate to extend the due date for e-filing of returns upto 31st October 2015 for which the CBDT shall issue appropriate notification/instructions under Section 119 of the Act. Direction is also issued to the respondents to ensure that the forms etc. which are to be prescribed for the audit report and for e-filing the returns should ordinarily be made available on the first day of April of the assessment year.
(Order dated 28.9.2015 passed by the Rajasthan High Court on a Public Interest Litigation in The Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association and another vs. The Union of India and another, D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.11037 of 2015 and Order dated 21.9.2015 passed by the Delhi High Court in Avinash Gupta vs. Union of India and others, W.P.(C) No.9032 of 2015 dissented from)
Related Judgements
- Naresh Trehan vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Delhi High Court) (i) Undoubtedly, the income tax returns and information provided to Income Tax Authorities by assessees is confidential and not required to be placed in public domain. Given the nature of the income tax returns and the information necessary to support…Read more ›
- Joginder Pal Gulati vs. OSD – CPIO (Delhi High Court) The Income-tax department has issued instructions with regard to procedure for selection of cases for scrutiny from time to time both qua corporate assessees as well as non-corporate assessees. These instructions give detailed procedure on the basis on which the concerned officers are required to make a random selection…
- CIT vs. Vishal Developers (Gujarat High Court) The department argued that the judgement in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Radhe Developers, (2012) 341 ITR 483 (Guj.) which draws a distinction between a "development contract" and a "works contract" and which holds that the benefit of s. 80-IB(10) is…Read more ›
- CIT vs. C. Jaichander (Madras High Court) (i) On a plain reading of Section 54EC(1) of the Act it is clear that it restricts the time limit for the period of investment after the property has been sold to six months. There is no cap on the…Read more ›
- The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) Non-Extension Of due date for filing ROI will cause "substantial hardship". CBDT must look into practical difficulties & take "just and proper" decision before 30.09.2014In view of the fact that the Madras High Court has already directed the CBDT to examine the representation of the assessees…
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment