9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Guj)). 3. Our attention was also specifically drawn to the fact that for the present, the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("the CBDT") have accepted the decision of the Gujarat High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court referred to herein above. Inasmuch as on September 30, 2015, the following two orders under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") have issued : First order "The Central Board of Direct Taxes, in compliance with the order of hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated September 29, 2015, in the case of Vishal Garg v. Union of India (CWP No. 19770 of 2015) and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), hereby orders that the returns of income due to be e-filed by September 30, 2015, may be filed by October 31, 2015, in cases of Income-tax assessees of the State(s) of the Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 2. This order shall be subject to the outcome of any further appeal/ special leave petition which the Central Board of Direct Taxes may file against the said judgment." Second order "The Central Board of Direct Taxes, in compliance with the order of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the court refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and extend the time to file return of income from the stipulated date of September 30, 2015. 8. In view of the conflicting views of different High Courts, the petition was kept today in the expectation that the Central Board of Direct Taxes would take a decision of either challenging the orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court before the apex court or accepting the same and applied all over India. Today, as pointed out hereinabove, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued two separate orders under section 119 of the Act, accepting the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Gujarat High Court and extended the time to file up to October 31, 2015, only in respect of assessees in the above two States and in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 9. Dr. Shivram, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, invited our attention today to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants (supra) which has extended the due date till October 31, 2015. This has been accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes having extended the filing of e-form of the ITR retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any, to be granted. 14. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Revenue. We find that with effect from the assessment year 2013-14, it is mandatory to e-file return of income. It is not open to an assessee to file return of income in hard copy. Thus, in the absence of the form and facility being available, it was impossible for any assessee to file its return of income. It is not dispute before us that the Central Board of Direct Taxes notified ITR Forms Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 only on July 29, 2015, and the forms were made available for filing on the web site of the Department only with effect from August 7, 2015. Thus, if the forms were notified as expected on 1st April of the year, then the assessee concerned would have had 183 days time available to collect the necessary information so as to enable them to e-file their returns of income, giving all particulars expected of them. However, in view of the delay in notifying the forms, the available time for the assessee to fill up the forms was restricted to 55 to 61 days, depending upon the dates when the forms are notified. Thus, in view of short time available, assessees were finding it difficult to comply with all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Avinash Gupta (supra) on September 21, 2015, wherein it has refused to entertain a petitioner seeking extension of the due date provided under the Act to e-file return in ITR Forms Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. It is submitted that in view of the above, the subsequent decision ought not to have been rendered, taking a view contrary to that taken by the Delhi High Court. In our opinion, Mr. Suresh Kumar is not right in this contention as these orders are relied upon by him would lose their significance in view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes itself accepting the contrary view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Gujarat High Court. Besides, each court is entitled to take its own view (see CIT v. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 727 (Bom)). 17. Mr. Suresh Kumar, also placed reliance upon the order dated September 29, 2015, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119 of the Act consequent to the order of the Karnataka High Court directing it to deal with the representation filed by the Karnataka State Chartered Accountants Association, to contend that this court should not interfere with the executive action of not extending the date of September 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same thereby causing inconvenience to the practitioners of the subject. There is sufficient time available to the Government, after the Finance Act of the financial year, to finalise the forms and if no change is intended therein, to notify of the same immediately. There appears to be no justification for delay beyond the assessment year in prescribing the said forms. Accordingly, though not granting any reliefs to the petitioner for the current assessment year, the respondents are directed to, with effect from the next assessment year, at least ensure that the forms, etc., which are to be prescribed for the audit report and for filing the ITR are available as on 1st April of the assessment year unless there is a valid reason therefor and which should be recorded in writing by the respondents themselves, without waiting for any representations to be made. The respondents, while doing so, to also take a decision whether owing thereto any extension of the due date is required to be prescribed and accordingly notify the public." From the aforesaid observations of the Delhi High Court, it is clear that it was also of the view that the Central Board of Direct Taxes should make ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
