The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) – II
by editorTaking into account the fact that the decision of the Gujarat High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court have been accepted by the CBDT issuing orders under Section 119 of the Act but very unfairly in case of an all India Statute restricting its benefit to only two States and one Union Territory. This itself warrants an extension of due date to the same date as is available for the assessees in Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana to avoid any discrimination to the assessees else where
The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) – II
| COURT: | Bombay High Court |
| CORAM: | G. S. Kulkarni J, M. S. Sanklecha J |
| SECTION(S): | 119, 139(1) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | Due date, Return of Income |
| COUNSEL: | Dr. K. Shivram, Rahul Hakani |
| DATE: | September 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | October 2, 2015 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2015-16 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| Strictures passed against CBDT for causing 'very unfair discrimination' between taxpayers by extending due date for filing ROI only for taxpayers in P&H and Gujarat and not for those in other States | |
(i) The present situation has arisen only in view of the delay on the part of CBDT in discharging its obligations of making available the ITR Form Nos. 3,4,5,6, and 7 in due time. Thus, the need to extend the due date. One more feature which was emphasized was that in case of ITR Forms 1,2,2A and 4S being non-audit cases, necessary forms were notified only on 22nd June, 2015 instead of 1st April, 2015 i.e. a delay of 83 days. The normal date of filing of return in such cases would be 31st July, 2015. However, the CBDT extended the same to 7th September, 2015 by an order dated 2nd September, 2015 under Section 119 of the Act. This on the ground that the delay in notifying the forms would cause great hardship to the tax payers. We are unable to appreciate how a delay of 83 days in making the ITR Form Nos.1,2, 2A and 4S in case of non-audit will cause great prejudice and delay of 120 days in making ITR Form Nos.3,4,5,6 and 7 does not cause any prejudice. The Gujarat High Court noted that the Scheme of the Act indicates that ordinarily a period of 180 days is available to the assessee to file income tax return in case of Efiling of return of income in Form Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Any curtailment of this period on account of non-availability of the necessary utility for filing a return online, does certainly cause prejudice to the assessee wholly on account of the delay on the part of the CBDT to notify the ITR Forms.
(ii) Taking into account the fact that the decision of the Gujarat High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court have been accepted by the CBDT issuing orders under Section 119 of the Act but very unfairly in case of an all India Statute restricting its benefit to only two States and one Union Territory. This itself warrants an extension of due date to the same date as is available for the assessees in Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana to avoid any discrimination to the assessees else where. Moreover, we find ourselves in agreement with the reasons given by the Gujarat High Court in All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants as also the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vishal Garg.
Related Judgements
- The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) The Respondent No.2 i.e. CBDT is directed to forthwith issue the order/ notification under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act and extend the due date for Efiling of the Income Tax Returns in respect of the assessee who are required to file return of income by 30th September,…
- 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…
- All Gujarat Federation Of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT (Gujarat High Court) The Board while not extending the due date for filing return was also of the view that due date should not be extended just for the benefit of those who have remained lax till now for no valid reason in discharging their legal obligations. It may be noted that…
- Vishal Garg vs. UOI (P&H High Court) 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…
- All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT (Gujarat High Court) Strictures passed against the CBDT for seeking to take advantage of its own wrong and disregarding genuine hardship of taxpayers. Due date for filing ROI extended to 30.11.2014 subject to charge of s. 234A interest(vi) The CBDT ought to have responded to the representation. Instead, it chose not to…
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment