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

DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
Non-Extension Of due date for filing ROI will cause “substantial hardship". CBDT must look into practical difficulties & take "just and proper" decision before 30.09.2014

The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition claiming that the action of the CBDT/ Government in issuing Notification dated 25.07.2014 to exercise the due date for filing the tax audit report u/s 44 AB but in not extending the due date for filing Income Tax Returns from 30.09.2014 to30.11.2014 was arbitrary. It was pointed out that great prejudice was being caused to the taxpayers by the said action of the CBDT. HELD by the High Court:

In view of the fact that the Madras High Court has already directed the CBDT to examine the representation of the assessees in general, before 30.09.2014, we feel it appropriate that the above representation of the Petitioners is also considered by the CBDT. Though we do not wish to express any view of the legalities of various issues involved, it does appear to us, from the arguments advanced, that there will be substantial hardship caused to the assessees, if the date of filing Return is not suitably extended. We hope and trust that CBDT will look into all these practical difficulties enumerated above and take a just and proper decision on the matter, before 30.09.2014, as already directed by the Madras High Court. In case the Petitioners are entitled to any further relief in view of the orders passed in various petitions filed in other High Courts, this order would not preclude the Petitioners from claiming the same.

4 comments on “The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
  1. vswami says:

    Why the CBDT will be justified in slumbering / waiting any longer ; in all fairness and wisdom, does not the highest executive authority require to forthwith come out with a general ‘benevolent’ circular for the benefit of the concerned taxpayers community “in the whole of India”- to which the IT Act, 1961 extends in terms of sec 1 (2), in Chapter I – instead of keeping them on toes till the ordained Day of Sept 30?

  2. Arun ganesh Jogdeo says:

    It was admitted in the Affidavit submitted to Bombay High court that “there was human intervention” in the software coding i.e. program writing. Of course this resulted in issuance of bogus demand notices u/s 143(1) to honest tax-payers.It admittedly ignored TDS paid by the tax-payer though it was apparent on 26AS form.This bogus collection in delhi jurisdiction amounts to 2.33 lac crores. One can imagine it for all India!

  3. Arun ganesh Jogdeo says:

    Any human intervention in software coding which is detrimental to the society is crime under Information Technology Act-2000, Sections 43, 65 and 74 and also crime under IPC. The matter is reported to the Supreme Court for Suo-motu action

  4. Fact is CBDT cannot as executive authority turn a Nelson’s eye to issues raised in the petition. Executive authority ought to go by the general demand, and it is executive just because people only given that power that power can be withdrawn by people that is the very people can dismiss the government if they rise in revolt, so the CBDT ought to behave meaningfully,
    But for people there is no Constitution at all; what great Executive talks about.

    I wonder why courts are not pulling the Executive authorities who are just satellites like the very governments themselves, after all without constitution, there is no government, no recognized political parties, no courts too!

    clarity in governance is missing very badly.

Leave a Reply

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