Follow Us :

CA Dev Kumar Kothari

CA DEV KUMAR KOTHARICBDT PROVED TO BE VERY UNREASONABLE TOP AUTHORITY EVEN DURING REGIME OF NAMO GOVERNMENT – even after directions from various High Court’s action of CBDT is not only very delayed but also half-hearted, incomplete and wrong- it requires to be rectified and clarified

Earlier article: Earlier article was written by author on 30.09.2015 at about 9:00PM and was web hosted on 04.10.15 under title

CBDT Appears to be Unreasonable Top Authority like Lower Tax Authorities

The article was written when few hours were left in countdown of last moment by which ROI and TAR could be uploaded that is 12:00 PM on 30.09.2015. By the time of writing of the article CBDT had extended time only for few states and not for all states, in spite of instruction from some other High Courts.

Unjust and High handed approach by CBDT:

The above situation created by CBDT was totally unjust and high handed approach of CBDT. When the highest administrative authority of direct tax department had such an approach, attitude and mentality, what public can expect from lower authorities. This approach of CBDT can be considered an indication of free hand given by CBDT to lower authorities to harass tax payers as is happening even during NAMO government.

Order- Instructions for extension of time to file ROI and TAR till 31.10.15 instead on30.09.2015 are reproduced below with highlights added by author. The latest order is dated 01.10.2015 that is after lapse of due date on 30.06.15 at 12PM. The order dated 01.10.2015 is for all India whereas earlier orders were for few states stated therein. As discussed later on, it seems that the orders issued are without proper application of mind and are not in accordance with provisions and intent. These circulars can be again a big point of controversy and litigation. As discussed latter analysis of Circulars by way of highlighting added, circulars need to be amended and clarified.

Order-Instruction – Income Tax

F.No.225/207/2015/ITA.II

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

Department of Revenue

Central Board of Direct Taxes

North Block, ITA.II Division

New Delhi dated the 1st of October, 2015

Order under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

In supersession of orders under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) dated 30th September, 2015 vide file of even number, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 119 of the Act, hereby orders that the returns of income and audit reports u/s 44AB due for e-filing by 30th September, 2015 may be filed, across the country, by 31st  October, 2015.

(Rohit Garg)

Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

————–

Order-Instruction – Income Tax

F. No. 225/207/2015/ITA.II

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

Department of Revenue

Central Board of Direct Taxes

North-Block, ITA.II Division

New Delhi dated the 30th of September, 2015

Order under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

The Central Board of Direct Taxes, in compliance to the order of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 28.09.2015 in case of Vishal Garg & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.; CWP 19770-2015 and in exercise of powers conferred under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), hereby orders that the returns of income due to be E-filed by 30th September, 2015 may be filed by 31st October, 2015 in cases of Income-tax assessees of the State(s) of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh.

 2. This order shall be subject to the outcome of any further appeal/SLP which the CBDT may file against the said judgment.

(Rohit Garg)

Deputy-Secretary to the Government of India

——————

Order-Instruction – Income Tax

F. No. 225/207/2015/ITA.II

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

Department of Revenue

Central Board of Direct Taxes

North-Block, ITA.II Division

New Delhi dated the 30th of September, 2015

Order under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

The Central Board of Direct Taxes, in compliance to the order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dated 29 .09.2015 in case of All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT; Special Civil Application No. 15075 of 2015 and in exercise of powers conferred under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), hereby orders that the returns of income due to be E-filed by 30th September, 2015 may be filed by 31st  October, 2015 in cases of Income-tax assessees of the State of Gujarat.

2. This order shall be subject to the outcome of any further appeal/SLP which the CBDT may file against the said judgment.

(Rohit Garg)

Deputy-Secretary to the Government of India

—————-

An analysis in addition to highlights added in circular reproduced above:

Earlier an orders were passes under the same file number on 30.09.2015 ordered that that the returns of income due to be E-filed by 30th September, 2015 may be filed by 31st  October, 2015 in cases of Income-tax assessees of the State of Gujarat.

Thereafter another order on the same day was issued on similar lines for the state Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh.

In both the orders, the Board has also stated that “This order shall be subject to the outcome of any further appeal/SLP which the CBDT may file against the said judgment”

The final Circular was issued on the day next after original due date that is on 01.10.15. This circular says that it is:

In supersession of orders under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) dated 30th September, 2015 vide file of even number, the Central Board of Direct Taxes,

That this is also in exercise of powers conferred under Section 119 of the Act,

The circular orders that:

(a) the returns of income and audit reports u/s 44AB due for e-filing by 30th September, 2015 may be filed, across the country, by 31st  October, 2015.

Observation of author:

The Circualr dated 01.10.15 supersedes earlier two circulars dated 30.09.15, therefore it can be said that Circualr dated 01.10.15 supersedes earlier circulars in all respect and the circular dated 01.10.15 applies to whole of India including the states of Gujarat, Punjab and Union Territory of Chandigarh for which earlier two circulars were issued.

The ultimate circular dates 01.10.15 does not contain anything about appeal before the Supreme Court and is not subject to outcome of such appeal, if any. Therefore, extended date is not subject to any appeal before the Supreme Court against judgments of High Courts.

There should be no appeal before The Supreme Court-

–appeal if any filed should be withdrawn:

As discussed above , in view of ultimate Circular dated 01.10.15, the order is not subject to any rider as was in earlier two circulars. Therefore, the CBDT or concerned authority should withdraw appeal if any, filed on this issue and in case no appeal has been filed, there should not be an attempt to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

About Circular- its content and effects:

Author hopes that the intent of ultimate Circular dated 01.10.2015 is to extend the ‘due date’ from 30.09.2015 to 31.09.2015 in cases where last date fixed for filing of ROI and / Or TAR (or any other similar report) was 30.09.2015. And that this circular or instruction is meant to achieve this purpose to extend the due date for all purposes.

It is needless to mention that even in absence of such circular any assessee could have filed e- ROI and e- TAR at any time within 31.03.2016. However, in such a case the return would be a belated return filed under S. 139 (4) and not within due date u/s 139 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Therefore, the language used in the Circular or Instruction is not complete. The Circular only says that E- return / E- TAR may be filed by 31.10.2015.

It does not, in clear terms says that the due date fixed as 30.09.2015 u/s 139 (1) {as defined vide Explanation 2 (a) to S. 139(1)} is extended to 31.10.2015.

The aspects lacking in the Circular:

The circular is silent about reasons and purpose of the Circular. It also does not say that it is desirable in public interest to do so or it is in interest of tax administration to do so. Any reason is also not given for exercise of such authority as is given vide section 119. Section 119 is reproduced below with highlights added for relevant portions:

[Instructions to subordinate authorities.

119. (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board :

Provided that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued—

(a) so as to require any income-tax authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; or

(b) so as to interfere with the discretion of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the exercise of his appellate functions.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power,—

(a) the Board may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and collection of revenue, issue, from time to time (whether by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of sections 115P, 115S, 115WD, 115WE, 115WF, 115WG, 115WH, 115WJ, 115WK, 139, 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155 , 158BFA, sub-section (1A) of section 201, sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234E,  271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes or fringe benefits or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures to be followed by other income-tax authorities in the work relating to assessment or collection of revenue or the initiation of pro­ceedings for the imposition of penalties and any such order may, if the Board is of opinion that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, be published and circulated in the prescribed manner for general information;

(b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorise any income-tax authority, not being a  Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law;

(c) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order for reasons to be specified therein, relax any requirement contained in any of the provisions of Chapter IV or Chapter VI-A, where the assessee has failed to comply with any requirement specified in such provision for claiming deduction thereunder, subject to the following condi­tions, namely:—

(i) the default in complying with such requirement was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee; and

(ii) the assessee has complied with such requirement before the completion of assessment in relation to the previous year in which such deduction is claimed :

Provided that the Central Government shall cause every order issued under this clause to be laid before each House of Parliament.

Relevant potion of S. 139:

Return of income.

139(1)  Every person,-

(a) being a company or a firm; or

(b) being a person other than a company or a firm, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax,

shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed :

Explanation 2.-In this sub-section, “due date” means,-

 (a) where the assessee other than an assessee referred to in clause (aa)  is-

(i) a company ; or

(ii) a person (other than a company) whose accounts are required to be audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or

(iii) a working partner of a firm whose accounts are required to be audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force,

     the 30th day of September of the assessment year;

(3) If any person who has sustained a loss in any previous year under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” or under the head “Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub-section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply as if it were a return under sub-section (1).

[(4) Any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1), or within the time allowed under a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142, may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.

—-

Observation of author:

On reading of S. 119 , 139 and other provisions relating to filing of reports, we find that (a) assessee is already allowed u/s 139 (4) to file a return after ‘due date’ but before end of the period of one year from end of assessment year. Therefore, an assessee can file a return of income for AY 2015-16 by 31.03. 2017 or before completion of assessment, if it is earlier. The Circular only says that E-return or E- TAR can be filed by 31.10.15 instead of by 30.09.15. There is nothing stated that if the return is filed or report is uploaded by 31.10.15 than it will be in compliance of filing within due date as required u/s 139 (1) of the Income-tax Act. This clarity is very much essential because of many advantages associated with filing of return within due date which are not available in case a return is filed after due date u/s 139(1) but within time allowed u/s 139 (4).

the case for relaxation of requirement about due date as per S. 139 regarding filing or e-filing of Return of Income or return of loss , Tax audit reports and other reports are in nature of relaxation allowed to public and tax payers / assessee.

The instructions to lower authorities can be issued vide clause (a) whereas relaxations can be granted bide clauses (b) and (c) .

In all clauses, the authority is given to the Board in terms of and subject to condition laid down in the following words:

Clause (a) is for directions to lower authorities and it contains the following conditions: (a)        the Board may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and collection of revenue, issue, from time to time (whether by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of sections ….. 139 ….

Clause (b) is for making relaxations for the tax payers/ public, it contains conditions like:

(b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorise 9[any income-tax authority, not being a 10[***] Commissioner (Appeals)] to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law;

Thus as per clause (a) board can authorise tax authorities (namely the Assessing Officers or Centralised receiving centers) to receive returns and reports.

Vide clause (b) Board can make relaxations. Return of income to be filed by a particular date is also in nature of claim for deductions and relief, refund, anc benefits for carry forward of loss etc.

In both clauses language used require that the Board will issue circular when it   consider that it is it desirable or expedient so to do….

Therefore, the circular issued without recording of such desirability and satisfaction and also reasons for such desirability is a defective circular.

Therefore, it is desirable that the Board should issue an addendum to the circular expressing that the Board consider it necessary, expedient and in public interest to extend the due date u/s 139 (1) from 30.09.2015 to 31.03.2015. To avoid any confusion and for clarity a new circular complete in all respect may be issued in supersession of Circular dated 01.10.2015.

Request to the Board:

Though the Courts have already directed to CBDT to issue relevant forms of returns, and reports and make available facilities for e-filing of the same on the first day of assessment year, it is requested to the Board that forms and facilities should be made available as soon as possible so that assesses and tax practioners can start working for preparation of details and also working on ROI and forms them even prior to commencement of assessment year. This is possible because applicable law under Act and Rule are available, generally before commencement of the previous year.

Therefore, if timely steps are taken, E-Forms and E-ROI with software can be made available for tax payers and tax practioners even in mid of previous year.

Besides to standardize the forms for any year following features can be added:

Blanks can be left for previous year and assessment year. These can be filled in.

Some residuary columns and rows can be kept which can be used as may be applicable.

With ROI, facility to attach explanations, clarifications and further claims for consideration by the Assessing Officers can be added.

Read Other Articles from CA Dev Kumar Kothari

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

0 Comments

  1. U MADHUSOODHANA AITHAL says:

    Totally it is a testing time for the professionals like Tax practitioners, CAs, even Accountants,etc.These circumstances now made us to think seriously on the sectional provisions like 44ab which governs the whole scenario, is whether helpful in the angle of Govt. tax revenue or is it controls the accountability of the market ! Because all sectional provisions are drafted and executed for the benefit of smooth running of the State Administration. But now it seems to be a very much hardship for execution of the said section. Hence we have to seriously decisions on the basic need of such prevailing section which caused to life and death of the Professionals. kindly need of serious discussion on the matter.
    Reply

  2. Shisir Das says:

    CBDT’s approach was totally uncalled for.It’s delayed and arbitrary orders under section 119 has evidenced the disrespect for the judiciary .The defiance agai bynst the High Court orders are meant to torment the professionals and assessees.These type of actions is by no means beneficial to revenue.Then what is the reason behind such unethical and against the sprit of “ease in doing business” attitude.

  3. Bhupendra says:

    Give them fertilizer they do not desreve milk because milk can not be digested by the CBDT there is no point in giving medicine after the patient dies must take the steps before the patient dies that is even the order had come at 7.00 pm on 30th september 15 that was nothing like that but there was not much use of 1st october 15 one must think about contempt of court issue. As such the returns as well as reports whcich were not ready had taken calculated risk, beside even if the report is late the plea of court decision could be taken as well as the reasonable cause also can be moved with Hindustan Steel Case of Supreme court. any way it is true that CBDT has acted like a lower most authority of the department which is not fair. No matter about the small amount of tax which is coming from the tax payer that fact must be remembered. Mera Bharat Mahan

  4. Chaitanya Dalal says:

    The CBDT did extend the date by a month. In all my cases, the efficent, good tax paying and time concious clients’ returns are filed. The beneficiary of the late notification are all blaggards, lazy and incompetent clients whose accounts were not ready. The very purpose of the petitions is not served. We worked day and night for the good clients to file their returns because the notification did not come in time. CBDT in their greed to collect the taxes before 30th Sept. delayed the notification. Are CBDT members Indians? Shame on such bureacrats who have no sensitivity for fellow Indians.
    Disgusted CA

  5. Tarunkumar D Trivedi says:

    CBDT has intentionally draft order in such a manner that tax payer and consultants should not gain anything. CBDT has merely stated that TAR and ROI may be filed by 31st October, 2015 nowhere stated that due date is extended up to 31st October,2015.Situation will be that tax payer may have to penalty proceedings in respect of late filing of TAR and c/F loss may be under litigation in case of late filing of ROI. High Courts which have allowed write under article 226 only that States Tax payer will get shelter of jurisdictional H C Judgement. This act of CBDT is throwing sends in the eye of Tax Payers, Tax consultants, Courts and FM.

  6. rkd says:

    THE NAMO GOVERNMENT SHOULD COMPLETELY OVERHAUL THE CBDT AND TAX LAWS MAKING THEM MORE TRANSPARENT,SIMPLE AND ASSESSEE FRIENDLY AND CONCENTRATE ON INCREASING REVENUE INSTEAD OF GIVING UNFETERED POWERS TO THE OFFICERS.

  7. shrenik jain says:

    However may be the CBDT was reveiewing the situation as they were not aware of writs and PIL’S filed in various high courts. The Hon Revenue Secretary Tweeted around 1.27am on 01.10.2015. That was not enough. The Bombay High Court gave a internim order by 1845 hours on 30.09.2015. all those 5hours45min CBDT and their heads were busy sleeping. Didnt their counsels convey the courts order verbally. All C.A. were interpreting the order of Bombay High Court and filing what ever was complete. Even God is not that harsh with Human Beings like the CBDT is.

  8. Pardeep Dang says:

    लगता हे देश आज भी अधीन हे अंग्रेज़ो के जहा पर लोगो की राय कोई महत्वपूर्ण नहीं बस नाम का सविधान हे बाकि तो सब कुछ एक जैसा हे। वही कानून वही विदेशी भाषा बस एक चीज़ बदल गयी गोरे अंग्रेज़ो की जगह कालो ने ले ली। और लड़ो बस इनसे क्योकि हम तो उनपड हे भारतीय जो हे। सरकार 7-09तक date बड़ा सकती हे साल भर सोती रहती हे जबकि बजट पास हुवे एक साल से भी अधिक हो जाता हे। बन गया मेक इन इंडिया। कौन आएगा इस देश में पैसा लगाने जब अपने ही पेरशान हे कौन देगा सलाह की यहाँ आना भी मुश्किल और निकालना भी मुश्किल बस confuson में रहो की रिश्वत कितनी देनी हे
    मेक इन इंडिया ऐसे ही बनेगा ओर हम अपने बच्चो को एक चीज़ अवश्य देंगे की कैसे रिश्वत दी जाए लॉं का पता हो या न पर रिश्वत के बेगर तुम्हारा लॉं बेकार हे चाहे सूप्रीम कोर्ट तक लड़ते रहो! क्लाईंट हमसे हमारी फीस बाद मे बाद मे पूछता हे पहले कहता हे की अप्पर के कितने लगेंगे!

  9. Rajesh says:

    I doubt officers in CBDT dealing with such sensitive issues (and drafting circulars/orders/notifications ) are even graduates.In fact they are destroying the image of Hon.PM NAMO. Even Hon.FM Arun Jaitley is acting like dictator.In a country of 1.25 Billion where hardly 4 crores are Income tax payers, inspite of increasing Tax payers base, the whole administration is behind Tax payers.

  10. Sabiha Ali says:

    The author appears to have made an error in mentioning the due date of filing the ROI :-
    As per the author the due date of filing of the ROI has been extended upto 31-03-2015 which is not proper. The due date u/s 139 (1) has been extended from 30.09.2015 to 31.10.2015. The relevant portion of the author’s statement is being reproduced below :-
    Therefore, it is desirable that the Board should issue an addendum to the circular expressing that the Board consider it necessary, expedient and in public interest to extend the due date u/s 139 (1) from 30.09.2015 to 31.03.2015. To avoid any confusion and for clarity a new circular complete in all respect may be issued in supersession of Circular dated 01.10.2015.

  11. kssunder says:

    The persons responsible for misinterpreting the HC orders and wasting public time and money should disciplined. It is shameful that the CBDT board and its chairperson could not understand court directions and had brought disrepute to Ministry of Finance and created serious doubts in the minds of the already doubtful minds of foreign investors.
    Our PM will have to do another round of pacification of foreigners for the stupidity of the Board

  12. girish says:

    Dear Kothari Sir,
    A nice legal analysis of the circulars.But unfortunately it is falling on deaf ears. Now after this poor irresponsible show by CBDT there is need for “timely ” corrective mechanism .The professionals and taxpayers were left at the mercy of CBDT and the Courts for NO FAULT.There should be Separate Monitoring and ethics committee administering the provisions of S 119 and should not be the monopoly of CBDT. It is very unfortunate that such incidents happen in a educated, civilized and for a Monetary wealthy tax payers .Just cant imagine how these handful of bureaucrats might be handling the other class of people.

  13. Dr A Subrahmanyam says:

    Last ten years we used to hear the then Prime Minister when replying to action on all matters including scams : ” We are following the Court directives in the matter….” Now the present Government also follows the court and to the extent of jurisdictional high courts also. A great improvement indeed !! So administration shifted to Courts !!! Executives will function only when court directs !!!!

  14. manish parekh says:

    manish parekh says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    10/05/2015 at 10:49 AM

    Life time Pensions for such IAS IRS and other government officers who are enjoying the unwarranted powers BRITISH era ACTS & RULES designed to loot the country. And no benefit for the TAX PAYER who pays tax during life time. Why they need to be provided pension for life + the enhanced pay recommended by Fifth Pay Commission. These ACTS were designed for British Rulers to RULE the masses, harass them, extract money, loot the country and divert all wealth. How can the same rules continue to apply today whereby the same harassment + loot continue – only change being British Officers have been replaced by Indian (govt) officers ? Is the PM listening ?

  15. GRA says:

    India’s Direct Tax administrator “CBDT” is an outdated department with full of outdated people with outdated mindset of “Mybaab” culture! The unfortunate issue here is disrespect shown to ICAI by CBDT and Finance Minister and/or both by not heeding the genuine request for extension. Is it CBDT is that much naive/useless or adamant to know that CA’s are the “facilitators” for Indis’s Direct and Indirect Tax collections every where? Is it CBDT don’t know that ICAI’s president is representing 150000 strong highly qualified and highly skilled and hardworking /disciplined professionals in India ? Unlike CBDT officials, who all promoted and with no work culture and professionalism and qualifications except psychophancy! Finally for all professional’s utter disbelief FM had shown his inability , less calibre and incapacity to manage or rein in CBDT . He proved his poor administrative skill and failed in this test and he is not cabable and wanting this highly demanding finance Ministry! The delay in implementing GST is an good examble which speaks itself of his quality and managerial skill?. Finally the ICAI should be more active/forthright in addressing the issues concerning practicing members ! Conducting seminor alone will not serve the purpose!

  16. Dr.CA Sunil Gulati says:

    Author’s version is legally correct that CBDT should issue addendum to the circular clarifying all issues to avoid for any future litigation on this issue.
    In fact CBDT worked just opposite the campaign of Namo Govt for ease of doing business in India.
    Circular dated 30.9.2015 in respect of a Central Act was against the federal structure/ system of the Country for which PM himself(when was CM,Gujarat) was a great crusader.Many senior recalled it as of British Era.
    Price should not be paid by Tax Payers for inefficiency of any authority.
    HC is right directing to issue forms well in time to avoid such litigation in future.

  17. Anil Kishore says:

    This is not only the issue. CBDT has modified form 15G/H from 1st October and change in procedure but they did not inform any bank as how UIN will be created. Every branch of all Banks are not knowing anything as how to generate Unique Identification Number. Everything is being done in haste and without applying mind. This is not limited to Income Tax related issues but this is happening for all other schemes. Only for marketing of GOI such things are being done in haste. This is nothing but chamachagiri of the departments and creating problems for others.

  18. Varaprasad Daitha says:

    The author appears to have missed one point whether the CBDT is authorised to revive the due date already expired on 30-9-2015 midnight. However, it is an academic issue.

  19. S HARI KRISHNA says:

    Author hopes that the intent of ultimate Circular dated 01.10.2015 is to extend the ‘due date’ from 30.09.2015 to 31.09.2015 in cases where last date fixed for filing of ROI and / Or TAR (or any other similar report) was 30.09.2015. And that this circular or instruction is meant to achieve this purpose to extend the due date for all purposes. – See more at: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/cbdt-highly-unreasonable-authority-namo-government-part.html#sthash.SLSRl08W.dpuf

    31-09-2015 date is wrong that should be 31-10-2015

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
March 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031