CA Sandeep Kanoi
After Gujarat and Andhra High Court, Madras High Court too directs CBDT to extend due date of Filing Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2014-15 in Tax Audit cases to 30.11.2014.
in respect of writ application filed by All India Federation of Tax Practitioners, G Baskar, an advocate and CNGSN & Associates, a firm of chartered accountants Madras High Court Held that The CBDT is directed to consider the request of the assesses in general and consider the extension of the time for filing the return in tune with the order passed by them in F.No. 133/24/2014-TPL dated August 20. If eventually the petitioners claim is rejected, the consequences of section 234-A would automatically follow. The CBDT is directed to pass orders on or before September 30, 2014.
Hearing on the similar cases is also going on before Honorable Rajasthan and Bombay High Court. Next Hearing at Mumbai High Court is on 25.09.2014, while at Rajasthan High Court nest Hearing is scheduled on 26.09.2014.
Full text of the Judgment is as follows :-
IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
All India Federation of Tax Practitioners
v.
CBDT, Government of India, Ministry of Finance
W.P. Nos. 25443 & 26306 to 26310 of 2014
Date- 24 September, 2014
RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
ORDER
These petitions coming on for orders upon pursuing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof and upon bearing the arguments of M/S. DR Anita Sumanth, Advocate for the petitioner in WP 25443 and to 26306/14 and of Mr. R. Sivaraman advocate for the petitioner in writ petition 26307 to 26310/14 and of Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda standing counsel taking notice for the Income Tax Department, the court made the following order:-
Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department takes notice. For the other respondents, the counsel for the petitioner shall take private notice returnable to three weeks.
- The main issue raised in these writ petition is as to whether the assessee will be able to file their returns, on or before 30-9-2014, when the Central Board of Direct Taxes has extended the due date for obtaining and furnishing the report of audit under section 44-AB of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15 upto 30-11-2014.
- The requirement to file a report of audit, alongwith the returns, was inserted under section 44-AB under the Finance Act of 1984- but, now the form in which the returns are to be filed on-line has undergone a change, on representations from the assessees, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has passed an order in terms of section 119, extending the time only for furnishing of the report of the audit, upto 30-11-2014, but the time for filing returns has not been extended beyond 30th September 2014.
- Considering these anomolous situation, Gujarat High Court appears to have passed an interim order, protecting the interest on the tax payers as well as the Revenue, directing the Central Board of Direct Taxes to extend the due date for filing the return of income, subject to the provisions of section 234A.
- Therefore, considering the fact that the only consequence of a default in filing a return of income on or before 30-9-2014 is to be traced to section 234-A, an interim order is passed to the following effect:
“The Central Board of Direct Taxes is directed to consider the request of the assessees in general and consider the extention of time for filing the return, in tune with the order passed by them in F. No. 133/24/2014 TPL dated 20-8-2014. If eventually the petitioners’ claim is rejected, the consequences of section 234A would automatically follow. The Central Board of Direct Taxes is directed to pass orders on or before 30-9-2014.”
Related News :-
Status of ITR Due Date extension cases Pending before Various HCs
Bombay HC ask CBDT to Consider Extension of ITR due Date to 30.11.2014
AP High Court to CBDT – Consider extension of Due date of ITR to 30.11.2014
Author Bio
Instead of various High courts getting involved, would it not be better to direct CBDT to simply issue one line circular immediately.
We understand from reading your above article / newsletter that Madras High court judgement is better off for the assessee, as compared to that of High courts of Ahmedabad, Bombay, Hyderabbad, Jaipur and Delhi.
Can we request you to send to us the judgements of all the above courts at one go and if it is so published now, the CBDT circular. PLEASE SEND WITH YOUR NEWSLETTER THE ABOVE SAY BY TOMM… SATURDAY, it shall be of great help to all assessees and tax professionals.
Madras Bar Association vs. UOI (Supreme Court – Full Bench)
The NTT Act “crosses the boundary” & is unconstitutional. CAs/CSs are specialists on accounts & facts and are not capable of arguing/ deciding ‘Substantial Questions Of Law’
The Full Bench of the Supreme Court had to consider whether the National Tax Tribunals Act, 2005, which sought to take away the jurisdiction of the High Courts in tax matters was constitutional. The Full Bench has struck down the entire Act as being unconstitutional on the ground that though “tribunalization” has been allowed subject to safeguards, the NTT Act “crosses the boundary” and “encroaches the exclusive domain” of the High Courts. In the course of the judgement, the Supreme Court had to consider whether Chartered Accountants could be appointed Members of the NTT and whether s. 13(1) of the Act which permitted Chartered Accountants to represent a party to an appeal before the NTT was valid in law. It also had to consider the application by the Company Secretaries that they are equal in all respects to the CAs and should also be permitted to appear and plead before the NTT. HELD by the Full Bench:
A perusal of the reported judgements shows that while deciding tax related disputes, provisions of different laws on diverse subjects had to be taken into consideration. The Members of the NTT would most definitely be confronted with the legal issues emerging out of Family Law, Hindu Law, Mohammedan Law, Company Law, Law of Partnership, Law related to Territoriality, Law related to Trusts and Societies, Contract Law, Law relating to Transfer of Property, Law relating to Intellectual Property, Interpretation of Statutes, and other Miscellaneous Provisions of Law, from time to time. The NTT besides the aforesaid statutes, will not only have to interpret the provisions of the three statutes, out of which appeals will be heard by it, but will also have to examine a challenge to the vires of statutory amendments made in the said provisions, from time to time. They will also have to determine in some cases, whether the provisions relied upon had a prospective or retrospective applicability. Keeping in mind the fact, that in terms of s. 15 of the NTT Act, the NTT would hear appeals from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the CESTAT only on “substantial questions of law”, it is difficult for us to appreciate the propriety of representation, on behalf of a party to an appeal, through either Chartered Accountants or Company Secretaries, before the NTT. The determination at the hands of the NTT is shorn of factual disputes. It has to decide only “substantial questions of law”. In our understanding, Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries would at best be specialists in understanding and explaining issues pertaining to accounts. These issues would, fall purely within the realm of facts. We find it difficult to accept the prayer made by the Company Secretaries to allow them, to represent a party to an appeal before the NTT. Even insofar as the Chartered Accountants are concerned, we are constrained to hold that allowing them to appear on behalf of a party before the NTT, would be unacceptable in law. We accordingly reject the claim of Company Secretaries, to represent a party before the NTT. We simultaneously hold s. 13(1), insofar as it allows Chartered Accountants to represent a party to an appeal before the NTT, as unconstitutional and unsustainable in law.
hope CBDT will issue notification shortly. just they will do it as usual at 5.00 pm on 30th Sep. By that time most of the returns will be filed.
WILL THE HC DIRECTIONS TO CBDT ARE VALID??????
On one hand the modest and quiet scientists bring laurels to Hindustan by silently performing their duties and on the other hand the egoist and shameless CBDT does not care for the national reputation and keeps on avoiding issuing a simple notification in the matter of extending the date.The expenditure incurred by the Govt on the frivolous litigation should be recovered from the members of CBDT.They have amassed wealth of crores of rupees and should have no difficulty in parting with few lacs from their pockets.
Please see the Due dates,
If assessee liable to Audit under any law or act,then due date for file ITR 30th Sep.
When filling of AUDIT Report date extended, automatically due date of ITR extend. Both are depending on each other.
I don,t understand why ?, professional created/derived different meanings regarding this.
Sir,
Thanks for giving the information
Thanks,
N.D. Kishore
Finance Manager
A yeoman service to the C.A. fraternity by keeping them up-dated. Thanks.
CBDT should immediately extend the date till 31/12/2014 without making it EGO issue.FM should train CBDT officials to be practical and think placing themselves in place of professionals like CAs who are back bone and very important link in collection of Tax revenue. CBDT officials are paid out of tax revenue contributed by tax payers and they should behave and act for welfare of people and not create chaos or fear.The haste shown by CBDT should have been shown in issuing instructions to tax officials to issue refund in time with interest and if not, officials should be made accountable.
Notification not showing in income tax site
The CBDT is not interesting to issue notification for due date 30.11.2014 for ITR 2014 After directions of GUJARAT,ANDHRA,MADRAS High courts decision .Is super power(CBDT) above the judicial power against High Court decision?Why they are doing so?
Thanks for information. Extension of filing return is required. Please update me latest progress.
Thanks & Regards,
Parimal Kishore
G.M. Finance,
Falcon Realty Service Pvt Ltd.
Sir,
I think High Courts given suggestive orders and not given direction to CBDT to extend time for submitting ROI.
Regards
VNS Sarma