9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Court, flies against the opinion of the CBDT and the circumstances, under which, both the circulars were framed and published. In other words, these circulars were necessitated on account of the legislative gap – even conflict between the Rules on the one hand, which mandated electronic filing and other provisions of the Statute, which prohibited the attachment of annexures along with returns, which resulted in ITR-V form, as were in the present case. Thus the Court is of the opinion that the question of law framed in this case is to be answered in favour of the assessee - ITA 897/2016 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2018 - S. Ravindra Bhat And A. K. Chawla, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr. Ved Jain and Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates ORDER Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat ( Oral ) 1. The question of law framed in the case, is, as follows:- Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fall into error in holding that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act,) was barred by time, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. The brief facts are that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on record, which, in the present case occurred after 01.12.2010, the question of issuing any notice under Section 143(3) of the Act did not arise. Elaborating further, it was further argued by the Revenue that in the present case, the assessee had, in fact, participated in the proceedings through its representatives and the plain textual interpretation would rather work against the assessee, who was aware of the Circular No.3 of 2009, which had enabled the parties to furnish the ITR-V form within 30 days of the furnishing the return electronically. In his submissions therefore, when the assessee did not do so, the Authorities were within their rights in treating whatever was filed as a nil return. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee contends that the circular of 01.09.2010 was in fact formulated precisely, to cater to the exigencies in the present case. It is pointed out that CBDT was aware of the chaos and confusion, which prevailed after its earlier circular of 2009. It is also contended that the assessee had in fact furnished the ITR-V forms within the period of 30 days through mail and the Circular No.3 of 2009 had not formulated any specific procedure i.e. furnishing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Income-tax Department or in any other manner. 7. In the present case, the Appellate Commissioner in his detailed order, was of the opinion that when the furnishing of the ITR-V form on 01.12.2010 was in accordance with the Circular of 01.09.2010 (which had provided for an extended period up to 31.12.2010 to the assessees to do so), the return filed originally i.e. on 30.09.2009, was deemed to be valid one. The discussion by the CIT (A) in this regard is as follows:- 4.4 The E-Filing of Return Scheme of CBDT provides that where the return has been filed electronically without digital signature, on successful transmission the acknowledgement in form ITR-V will be generated by computer. The said computer generated form ITR-V shall be downloaded after taking a print out it shall be physically verified under the signature of the taxpayer shall be forwarded to the CPC, within the prescribed time period. If the said ITR-V in physical form is not sent to the CPC within the prescribed time period, then the return filed electronically will be considered as an invalid return. The scheme further provides that the date of e-filing of the return shall be considered as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn 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. 6. In view of the above, the 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. 8. The con-joint reading of para 10 of Circular No.3 of 2009 and the circular dated 01.09.2010 makes it clear, beyond any manner of doubt, that, CBDT itself was alive to the difficulties faced in implementation of Section 139C, having regard to the phraseology in Section 295B. In the event of assessee choosing to file without digital signatures as per Rule 12(3) of the Income Tax Rules, there was a gap in the Statute even a conflict. The Rule was, in essence, at war with the express provision of the Statute, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
