Summary: Article discusses India’s income-tax refund claim framework for taxpayers who miss the belated return filing deadline. It states that for AY 2026-27, a belated return can ordinarily be filed up to 31 December 2026, after which an updated return cannot be used to claim or increase a refund. Taxpayers must instead seek condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b), with CBDT Circular No. 11/2024 permitting applications within five years from the end of the relevant assessment year, subject to demonstrating reasonable cause and genuine hardship, and without interest on approved belated refunds. The article highlights the treatment of updated returns that permit additional tax payments but not refund claims, discusses the practical impact on taxpayers, refers to CBDT Time-Series Data and PAN-category data regarding taxpayers with TDS but no ITR, outlines refund claim approaches in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Singapore, and suggests introducing a non-discretionary period of at least three years, preferably four years, for refund claims, along with safeguards including late-filing fees, verification, matching with tax records and retention of Section 119(2)(b) for exceptional cases.
India’s Income Tax Refund Claim Rules After Belated Return Deadline Need Reconsideration
An income-tax refund is not a concession, subsidy or benefit granted by the Government. It represents tax collected from a person in excess of his final legal liability.
Nevertheless, under the present Indian system, a taxpayer who misses the deadline for filing a belated income-tax return will find that recovering his own excess tax becomes a costly, time-consuming gamble, with no assured right to relief and entirely subject to the department’s discretion on whether to even grant an opportunity.
For Assessment Year 2026-27, a belated return can ordinarily be filed up to 31 December 2026. Once that date is missed, the taxpayer cannot use an updated return to claim the refund because an updated return is expressly prohibited where it results in or increases a refund.
The taxpayer must instead seek condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b). CBDT Circular No. 11/2024 permits such applications within five years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, this is not an automatic five-year refund period, and obtaining approval is often difficult, involving strict scrutiny and discretionary evaluation by the prescribed authority. The taxpayer must convincingly demonstrate a reasonable cause for the delay and establish that denial of the claim would result in genuine hardship, failing which the application may be rejected. Even where the application is approved after such rigorous examination, interest is not admissible on the belated refund claim.
The real concern is therefore not that the refund becomes legally impossible immediately after 31 December. The concern is that an ordinary statutory right is converted into a discretionary administrative remedy.
India’s one-sided updated-return system
The most glaring and indefensible anomaly in India’s tax framework is the blatantly one-sided treatment of updated returns, which clearly reflects the Government’s revenue-first mindset at the cost of fairness.
A taxpayer is conveniently allowed to file an updated return for up to 48 months only when it results in additional tax being paid to the Government. However, the moment the same correction reveals that the Government has collected excess tax, the law shuts the door entirely. This selective flexibility exposes a system designed not for justice, but for maximizing collections.
It is evident that the Government is far more interested in extracting past dues than ensuring equitable treatment. In fact, it recently extended the updated return window from 2 years to 4 years—clearly to widen its net for collecting additional taxes—yet has done absolutely nothing to provide similar relief for belated returns where taxpayers seek rightful refunds.
This double standard is not just unfair; it is fundamentally biased. While the Government freely imposes additional tax, interest, and penalties on delayed payments, it forces taxpayers to jump through bureaucratic hoops to reclaim their own money. Taxpayers must justify delays, prove hardship, and even then are denied interest on amounts wrongfully held by the Government.
Such a framework does not reflect fiscal fairness—it reflects a system tilted heavily in favour of the Government, where taxpayer rights are clearly an afterthought.
The system particularly harms small taxpayers
A large taxpayer may engage professionals, prepare a detailed condonation petition and pursue the matter before the jurisdictional authority.
A salaried individual with a refund of ₹10,000 or ₹20,000 may not do so. The professional cost, procedural complexity, uncertainty and time involved may be disproportionate to the amount of the refund. Consequently, the taxpayer abandons the claim and the Government retains money that was never substantively payable as tax.
The burden is likely to fall most heavily on senior citizens, legal heirs, persons affected by illness, less digitally literate taxpayers and individuals who depended upon employers or intermediaries for tax compliance.
A remedy that is theoretically available but economically impractical cannot be regarded as fully effective.
Rising Gap Between TDS-Affected Non-Filers and Return Filers: A Growing Policy Concern
CBDT does not appear to publish an assessment-year-wise figure for TDS credits belonging to non-filers or for refunds foregone because taxpayers missed the belated-return deadline. However, CBDT’s own Time-Series Data indicates that the gap between its defined number of “taxpayers”—which includes persons with TDS but no ITR—and return filers increased from approximately 1.98 crore in AY 2022-23 to 2.32 crore in AY 2023-24 and further to 3.57 crore in AY 2024-25. Importantly, CBDT’s PAN-category data suggests that approximately 98–99% of these indicative non-filers are individuals. In absolute terms, the estimated number of individual PAN holders in this category increased from about 1.94 crore in AY 2022-23 to 2.28 crore in AY 2023-24 and to 3.53 crore in AY 2024-25. While this does not mean that every such person was entitled to a refund, it demonstrates the enormous and rapidly growing population of individual taxpayers from whose income tax was deducted despite no return being filed, raising an important public-policy question: how much of this tax would have been refundable had these individuals been permitted to claim it through a simple, non-discretionary mechanism?
How other countries deal with late refund claims
The United States generally allows taxpayers to file a past-due return and claim a refund within three years of the original due date, without needing to prove hardship, and no late-filing penalty applies if a refund is due.
The United Kingdom permits a Self Assessment or overpayment-relief claim within four years after the relevant tax year. While late-filing penalties may apply, they are separate from the right to recover excess tax.
Canada has a standard three-year refund limitation period. However, its taxpayer-relief provisions may allow adjustments or refunds for up to ten prior years, though this is discretionary.
Singapore adopts a practical approach. It may impose penalties and take enforcement action for non-filing, but still requires the return to be submitted and refunds any excess tax found. Claims for omitted reliefs generally have a four-year correction period, and refunds may include interest if delayed.
A deadline may justify a penalty—but not forfeiture
No tax system can operate without limitation periods. Authorities require finality, records become difficult to verify with time and unlimited refund claims can create opportunities for fraud.
But those concerns do not require India’s present all-or-nothing approach.
A distinction should be made between:
1. the taxpayer’s failure to comply with a filing deadline; and
2. the Government’s substantive entitlement to retain the money.
Late filing is a procedural default. It can appropriately result in a fixed late fee, loss of interest for the delayed period and enhanced scrutiny. But where the taxpayer proves from Form 26AS, AIS, TDS certificates, bank records and other evidence that tax was collected in excess of his actual liability, continued retention of the principal amount is difficult to justify as a proportionate consequence.
This issue is especially important because much of the relevant information is already available with the Income Tax Department. TDS, TCS, advance tax, salary income, interest income and many securities transactions are reported electronically by third parties. In a simple salary or interest-refund case, the Department is often in possession of the evidence of both the income and the tax deducted.
What India should change
India should introduce a non-discretionary period of at least three years, preferably four years, during which a taxpayer may file a refund return as a matter of right.
The following safeguards can protect the Revenue:
- a reasonable fixed late-filing fee;
- denial of refund interest for the period attributable to the taxpayer’s delay;
- enhanced verification for large or unusual claims;
- mandatory matching with Form 26AS, AIS and tax-payment records;
- penalties and prosecution for fraudulent claims;
- interest payable by the Department if the refund is not processed within a prescribed period after filing.
The updated-return mechanism should also be made symmetrical. If an updated return can be used to pay additional tax for up to 48 months, it should also be capable of claiming excess tax for the same period, subject to appropriate verification.
Section 119(2)(b) should remain available for exceptional claims made after the ordinary three- or four-year period. It should not be the first and only route immediately after 31 December.
Conclusion
Deadlines are necessary for tax administration, but they should regulate compliance rather than produce an unintended windfall for the State.
The United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Singapore demonstrate that it is possible to penalise late filing while preserving the taxpayer’s right to recover excess tax for a reasonable statutory period.
India should adopt the same basic principle:
Delay may justify a fee, additional verification or loss of interest. It should not ordinarily justify the Government retaining tax that was never legally due.
Author Bio
