Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
CBDT directed to forthwith issue an order u/s 119 to extend the due date for filing ROI to 31.10.2015

The order has been dictated in the open Court which is in the process of being transcribed. However, due to urgency, we are issuing the following operative order:

(i) The Respondent No.2 i.e. CBDT is directed to forthwith issue the order/ notification under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act and extend the due date for Efiling of the Income Tax Returns in respect of the assessee who are required to file return of income by 30th September, 2015 to 31st October, 2015;

(ii) It is made clear that at this stage we have not opined any other issue except to the extent of the aforesaid directions. It is made clear that this order will not affect any other obligation that may arise under the Act.

2 comments on “The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
  1. gopal nathani says:

    It is highly unfortunate that some courts have extended due date of ITR filing while some have not. whereas the courts have a right to express their opinion but CBDT in a complete haste only acted in an absolute immatured manner by going with state courts individually.

    First they issued a notification asking assessee’s to file returns by september 30 saying they do not intend to extend date even while the matter was sub-judice/petitions were waiting/were heard before various courts.

    Secondly by issuing different notifications for different states in the guise of section 119 is a very biggest flaw committed by CBDT first time ever in the history of tax administration. for the fact that there was no Apex Court ruling available as on the due date there could have been no way to issue several notifications restricting extention to states specific assessee’s. the right way was to issue sngle notification extending date to all and then they could have gone further to the SC for further guidance or to safeguard their revenue interest.

    further the CBDT action does not gel with section 119 which is a remedial section to bring help to the taxpayer and here by sigling out assessee’s on the basis of states jurisdiction the CBDT has acted excessively.

    Hope the SC will take serious note of this and lay down clear cut guidelines in this regard for not such kind of improper application of section 119 in future.

  2. vswami says:

    Now , that the due date for filing tax return has been extended to October 31, the CBDT ought not defer or postpone but expeditiously consider the merits or otherwise of the viewpoints urged by one against the noted deficiencies in the newly introduced requirement of online “Registration of LH” – as a prerequisite for successfully e’ filing tax return by LRs, of varying types on behalf of another person ; and soon come out with an official helpful notification after having effected the requisite changes/modification of the said requirement @CPC as realised to be warranted.

Leave a Reply

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

*