9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 679 - AT - Income TaxNotice u/s 143(2) for regular assessment u/s 143(3) - computation of period of limitation - Filing of form ITR-V held that - The scheme framed by CBDT has clarified that the date of transmitting the return electronically shall be the date of furnishing of return, if the form ITR-V is furnished in the prescribed manner and within the period specified. In this case, the period specified is 31-12-2010 or 120 days from the date of uploading the return whichever is later. Admittedly form ITR-V was received by CPC on 29-11-2010 is within the prescribed time in the prescribed manner in the prescribed form. Hence, for all practical purpose, the date of filing of the return shall relate back to the date on which the return was electronically uploaded i.e. 25-09-2009. Therefore, the contention of the ld.DR that receipt of Form ITR-V is the date of receipt of return has no merit at all - date of filing of the return of income is 25-09-2009. Therefore, the notice served on the taxpayer u/s 143(2) on 26-08-2011 is beyond the period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished. Therefore, the notice issued by the assessing officer u/s 143(2) is invalid. Hence, it cannot be acted upon. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer cannot stand in the eyes of law. Therefore, the same is quashed. the object behind the filing of form ITR-V the method prescribed by CBDT for transmitting the same by ordinary or speed post and the consequence of not filing the Form ITR-V within the specified time are left open to be decided in appropriate appeal.
Issues:
1. Date of filing of return of income based on the dispatch of ITR-V form. 2. Validity of notice served under section 143(2) based on the date of filing of the return. 3. Interpretation of the scheme framed by the CBDT regarding the filing of ITR-V form. 4. Effect of the extended time limit for filing ITR-V form on the date of filing of the return. Analysis: 1. The taxpayer contended that the return was electronically uploaded on 25-09-2009, and the ITR-V form was dispatched to the Central Processing Centre (CPC) on 05-10-2009, within 120 days as per the CBDT scheme. The taxpayer argued that the date of filing should be considered as 25-09-2009. The assessing officer issued a notice under section 143(2) on 06-09-2011, which was deemed invalid as it exceeded the time limit specified under Proviso to section 143(2). The Tribunal found in favor of the taxpayer, stating that the notice was beyond the statutory period, rendering the assessment order invalid. 2. The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the ITR-V form had to be sent to the CPC within 120 days from the date of uploading the return electronically to authenticate the contents. Failure to do so would result in the return being treated as invalid. The DR contended that the return was considered filed only upon receipt of the ITR-V form by the CPC. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument and upheld that the date of filing should relate back to the date of electronic uploading, as long as the ITR-V was sent within the prescribed time. 3. The CBDT circular dated 21-05-2009 extended the time limit for filing the ITR-V form up to 31-12-2010. The Tribunal noted that the ITR-V was received by the CPC on 29-11-2010, within the extended period. The Tribunal emphasized that the filing of ITR-V within the extended period validated the return filed by the taxpayer, and the date of filing related back to the date of electronic uploading, i.e., 25-09-2009. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the receipt of ITR-V determined the date of filing. 4. The Tribunal clarified that the CBDT scheme required the ITR-V form to be sent within the prescribed time and manner, and upon receipt by the CPC, the date of filing related back to the date of electronic uploading. As the ITR-V was received within the extended period, the date of filing was considered as 25-09-2009. Consequently, the notice served under section 143(2) was deemed invalid, and the assessment order was quashed. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below, allowing the taxpayer's appeal and dismissing the revenue's appeal.
|
