9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1123 - HC - Income TaxExtension of time for filing of ITR - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - maintainability of PIL - Held that - The period claimed by the petitioner as a matter of right of 180 days for filing the ITR is admittedly not prescribed, neither in the Statute nor in the Rules. According to the counsel for the petitioner also, the same has to be deduced from the scheme of the Act. Unable to gauge any such scheme in the Act assuring 180 days to the assessee for filing the ITR. As already observed above, filing of ITR for assesses due date wherefor is 180 days is dependent upon the accounts of the assessee being audited and which audit the counsel for the petitioner admits commences only on the beginning of assessment year. The said audit, in the case of some assesses may be completed in a few days and in case of others may take longer. Thus, the time taken in audit, which is variable, will be determinative of the time available thereafter for filing the ITR. The said audit is not dependent upon the prescription of the forms for report of the said audit and / or for filing of the ITR. Audit, as per my understanding is to be as per the Guidelines prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the expectation, even if any for amendment to the form of the Audit Report and /or of the form for filing the ITR is not to interfere with the commencement or completion of the audit and which can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a small task. Experience of life shows that the said audit itself takes the majority of the time, even if can be said to be prescribed of 180 days, for filing of the ITR. Once the audit is complete, in my opinion, the time admittedly available from 29th July, 2015 / 7th August, 2015 to 30th September, 2015 cannot be said to be so small / short which would qualify as unreasonable and in which the Chartered Accountants and the other practitioners of the field cannot be said to be having sufficient time to fill up the forms as per the audit already completed and to file the ITR. It is not as if the Authorities have not applied themselves to the matter. The Authorities concerned, while have extended time for filing of the ITR from the due date of 31st July to 7th September, after having brought out the Notification dated 29th July, 2015 were of the opinion that there was no need for extension of due date of 30th September.It is also significant that the respondents, vide Press Release dated 9th September, 2015 have notified that the date of 30th September will not be extended and have advised the taxpayers to file the returns accordingly. It is thus not as if the respondents have kept the decision in this regard pending till the last date. After 9th September also, sufficient time is available for filing the ITR. The test to be applied in such matters is not of seeing whether the respondents would suffer any prejudice or not, without first being satisfied of the infringement of rights of the petitioner and/or prejudice being caused to the petitioner. If no right is infringed and no prejudice is found to be caused to the petitioner, merely because no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by extending the time for filing the ITR would not be a ground for interfering with the policy decision of the Government and granting such extension. Save for the aforesaid direction, the petition is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the due date for filing Income Tax Returns (ITR) under Section 139(1) is a constitutional and statutory right of the assessee. 2. Whether the delay in notifying the prescribed Income Tax Forms under Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, is unconstitutional. 3. Whether the respondents should extend the due date for filing ITR and furnishing Audit Reports due to the delay in form notification. 4. Whether the Press Release dated 09.09.2015, which did not extend the due date for filing ITR for certain categories of assessees, is null and void. 5. Whether the petitioner has suffered any prejudice due to the non-extension of the due date for filing ITR. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Constitutional and Statutory Right of the Assessee The petitioner sought a declaration that the due date for filing ITR under Section 139(1) is a constitutional and statutory right. However, the court found no provision in the statute or rules prescribing a specific period of 180 days for filing ITR. The court noted that the due date is determined by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for the extension of the due date if necessary for proper management of assessment and revenue collection. Issue 2: Delay in Notifying Prescribed Forms The petitioner argued that the delay in notifying the prescribed forms under Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was unconstitutional. The court observed that the forms were prescribed on 29th July 2015 and made available from 7th August 2015. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any statutory or constitutional right to a specific period for filing ITR after the forms were made available. Issue 3: Extension of Due Date The petitioner contended that the due date should be extended due to the delay in form notification. The court noted that the audit of accounts could commence from 1st April 2015, and the time from 29th July or 7th August 2015 to 30th September 2015 was sufficient for filing ITR. The court found no unreasonable shortness in the time available for filing ITR and held that the petitioner did not suffer any prejudice due to the non-extension of the due date. Issue 4: Validity of Press Release Dated 09.09.2015 The petitioner challenged the Press Release dated 09.09.2015, which did not extend the due date for filing ITR for certain categories of assessees. The court held that such decisions are policy matters within the executive domain. The court found no infringement of vested rights or undue prejudice to the petitioner and declined to interfere with the policy decision. Issue 5: Prejudice to the Petitioner The petitioner argued that practitioners were busy filing returns for assessees with a due date of 31st July, extended to 7th September, leaving little time for those with a due date of 30th September. The court held that executive decisions should not be interfered with unless they cause undue prejudice or infringe rights. The court found no prejudice to the petitioner and dismissed the petition. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, finding no statutory or constitutional right to a specific period for filing ITR, no undue prejudice to the petitioner, and no grounds to interfere with the executive's policy decision. The court directed the respondents to ensure that forms for the Audit Report and ITR are available from 1st April of the assessment year in future, unless valid reasons are recorded.
|
