2018 (10) TMI 810 - HC - Income Tax

Extension of due date of filing of tax Audit Report and Income-Tax Return - Seeks time for reconciling ITR with GSTR-9 - Held that - This Court is of the view that this petition can be disposed of at this stage with the direction to the respondent authorities to consider on or before 25.10.2018 the representation submitted by the petitioners on 20.09.2018 for extension of due date for filing return by issuing a speaking order so that in the event the petitioners are aggrieved by the order that may be passed they would have the liberty to approach this Court again - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of due date for filing tax, audit report, and income tax return.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a petition seeking an extension of the due date for filing tax, audit report, and income tax return, arguing that the original deadline of 30.09.2018 was insufficient due to the complexity of the processes involved, including obtaining information related to GSTR-9. The respondents had already extended the deadline to 31.10.2018, citing an order issued under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners, represented by Ms. Gope, contended that even the extended deadline was burdensome considering the circumstances. Ms. Gope also mentioned that the petitioners had submitted a representation on 20.09.2018 and requested the court to direct the authorities to consider this representation by 25.10.2018. If the authorities were convinced, they could further extend the deadline; otherwise, the petitioners could approach the court again for an extension.

The court, after hearing arguments from both parties, decided to dispose of the petition by directing the respondent authorities to review the petitioners' representation submitted on 20.09.2018 by 25.10.2018. The court instructed the authorities to issue a speaking order on the representation, allowing the petitioners the option to approach the court again if they were dissatisfied with the decision made by the authorities. This direction provided the petitioners with a recourse in case their request for an extension of the due date was not granted by the authorities. The court's decision aimed to ensure that the petitioners had an opportunity to challenge any adverse decision made by the authorities regarding the extension of the filing deadline.

Therefore, the court's judgment primarily focused on providing a mechanism for the petitioners to address their concerns regarding the deadline for filing tax, audit report, and income tax return. By directing the authorities to consider the petitioners' representation and issue a speaking order by a specified date, the court ensured that the petitioners had a chance to seek further relief if needed. The judgment balanced the interests of the petitioners in obtaining an extended deadline with the procedural requirements and decisions of the tax authorities, ultimately allowing for a fair and transparent process in addressing the issue at hand.