prpri CBDT allows issue of Refund Intimation U/s. 143(1) beyond time CBDT allows issue of Refund Intimation U/s. 143(1) beyond time

Instruction No. 18/2013, dated the 17th of December, 2013

Subject: – Issue of Intimation under section 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 beyond time-regarding.

Several instances have come to the notice of the Board Where due to certain technical or other reasons (which inter-alia included wrong migration of PAN and delayed release of returns by the Centralized Processing Cell to the jurisdictional authorities), intimation in refund cases could not be sent to the concerned assessees within the time-frame as prescribed in second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). This has caused grievances as assessees are unable to get their legitimate refunds in accordance with provisions of Act, although the delay is not attributable to them.

2. The matter has been examined. Central Board of Direct Taxes, by virtue of power vested in it under section 119(2)(a) of the Act, hereby relaxes the time-frame prescribed in second proviso to sub-section(1) of section 143 of the Act in those cases where the return¬of-income was filed by the assessee in accordance with provisions of section 139/142(1) of the Act, but due to technical or other reasons not attributable to such assessees, the date of sending intimation under section 143(1) of the Act has lapsed before 01-04-2013. In such cases, Central Board of Direct Taxes directs that such returns shall be processed and intimation of processing of such returns shall be sent to the assessee concerned by the Assessing Officer in accordance with provisions of section 143 of the Act notwithstanding the time-limit prescribed in second proviso to sub-section (1) of that section.

3. The progress of disposal of such cases shall be monitored by the Addl./Joint CIT.

4. It its reiterated that this Instruction shall only apply to those cases where a valid return-of-income was filed as per provisions of the Act with refund claim, but the same remained peOing beyond the prescribed date due to reasons not attributable to the assessee. Further, this relaxation shall not be applicable to those cases where either Demand is shown as payable in the return-of-income or as a result of processing beyond the date as prescribed in second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 143, Demand is determined As payable.

5. This should be immediately brought to the notice of all officers working in your region.

F.No. 225/196/2013-ITA.II

Yours faithfully,

(Rohit Garg)

Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

More Under Income Tax


  1. sekaran says:

    The move to have a last date for the 143 notice is highly laudable.ITO assessment should be a time bound assessment not open. For the same reason all the tax payers should make only on line ITRs here afterwards as there is a record of everything and none can be shielded for lapses.
    I believe that the CPC office is doing a wonderful job and the ITRs are also on their toes to avoid stigma which none worried about all these years and could lead a cushy life. But there are a few points like company assessments where black sheep can still thrive and slippery ITOs might hanker for postings to such places for obvious reasons. AAP may be let loose on such cases and the myths busted!!

  2. Bhavesh says:

    Time limit for issue of notice u/s 143(1) is one year from the end of financial year in which the return of income was filed. This can be understand by following example:

    If you file return of income for A.Y. 13-14 on 31/07/2013, then the last date for issue of notice u/s 143(1) is 31/03/2015.

  3. vswami says:

    Offhand > This is a circular issued with specific reference to Sec 143 (1) Intimation in cases claiming refunds. As such, and if so, certain of the contents , particularly in its Para. 4 seem to be lacking in clarity:
    1, In what circumstances, if the same remained pending beyond the prescribed date, could conceivably be, as implied, due to reasons attributable to the assessee?
    2, “…to those cases where Demand is shown as payable in the return of income…” (Noted fallacy is in the underlined expression).
    As is readily imagined, may be, the blame is on bad English or hasty and mindless drafting; if there has been any misconception, open to be corrected,
    No wonder that a veteran exponent of and renowned expert on tax and other laws, used to lament about the long prevalent incomprehensibility of the language used in tax laws and related matters, mainly coming in the way of clear understanding and effective implementation .

  4. sekaran says:

    I am happy to say that I received my IT refund for 2013-14 despite a CPC note to me under the relevant section stating that my tax payments made thru Indian Bank Chennai were not yet received for four past years starting from 2005-2006!!
    I presented all my documents and the ITO was kind enough to peruse the details and sanction the refund without any deductions.
    It was a great achievement for both the CBDT and self.

  5. pkb says:

    Isnt it a crime that the department is charging interest @ 15 % and giving interest @6 % on refund. They are deliberately delaying the refund and at the same time charging higher interest for not depositing advamce tax. There should be ammendment that if the department is delaying refund without any reason interest rate should be 15 % PA.

  6. dattatreyahg says:

    It is a very strange instruction. What is this relaxation of time limit it is talking about?!! Where is the necessity to issue a big instruction of this nature,quoting Sectins etc,that too at the level of CBDT? I am sure CBDT has higher level functions. The simple FACT is this.There are cases where Refunds have been delayed for two years & more for no reason at all. All that is needed is take the concerned fellows to task, make a red ink entry in their Annual Appraisal Reports if lethargy / inefficiency is proved,make systemic corrections where needed to avoid recurrence, simplify systems & procedures,bring the rules & regulations to the bare minimum,and totally avoid the necessity of face-to-face meetings with Tax-Authorities,which is likely to breed Corruption. There was a time when Refunds for two years were paid in a single year in a span of a few months.(Where there is will, there is way. Where there is good leadership, things can move fast). After that, there is a big vacuum in the area of Refunds,causing a burden of interest to the Govt. CBDT should look into these bigger systemic things instead of wasting their valuable time in issuing frivolous instructions.

Leave a Comment

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

Search Posts by Date

August 2021