2025 (3) TMI 1233 - HC - Income Tax

Treating the return filed as defective return u/s 139 (9) - petitioner has not filed the tax audit report as required u/s 44AB - HELD THAT - If the petitioner can access the system of the respondents to download the impugned order we fail to understand why the respondents cannot access the said order and reject the rectification application on the ground that the base order is not available. This requires a serious investigation into the IT system of the respondents because the said incompetency would be against the efforts of the Government for transmission to electronic mode of adjudication of the disputes under the Act. Without going into the larger controversy we direct the petitioner of the petition which is the order treating the return as invalid with respondent no.2 within one week from the date of uploading the present order. The petitioner is also directed to file a copy of ITR Form uploaded with the system of the respondents and the return which respondent no.1 has treated as defective. On receipt of the petitioner filing above documents respondent no.2 will dispose of the rectification petition filed by the petitioner vide letter dated 25 November 2024. The said rectification petition should be disposed of after giving petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The rectification order should be passed on or before 30 April 2025.

Summary

**Summary of Judgment:**In the case before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner challenged an order by the respondent, CPC Bengaluru, which treated the petitioner's tax return for the assessment year 2023-24 as defective under Section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the absence of a tax audit report as required by Section 44AB. The petitioner initially sought relief through prayer clauses (a) and (b), which were later withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Jeet Kamdar.Subsequently, the petitioner filed a rectification petition on November 25, 2024, which was rejected by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax via email on February 11, 2025. The rejection was based on the claim that there was "no base order available on the system to be rectified." The court found this reasoning flawed, noting that the petitioner could access and download the impugned order from the respondent's system, indicating its availability.The court directed the petitioner to submit the order (pages 112 to 114 of the petition) and related documents to respondent no. 2 within one week. Respondent no. 2 was instructed to dispose of the rectification petition, ensuring the petitioner is given an opportunity for a hearing, with a deadline for the rectification order set for April 30, 2025. The petition was disposed of on these terms.