The CBDT has issued Circular No. 9/2015 dated 9th June 2015 to deal with the issue of condonation of delay in filing refund claim and claim of carry forward of losses under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The said Circular contains containing comprehensive guidelines on the conditions for condonation and the procedure to be followed tor deciding such matters.
Circular No. 9/2015
F.No.312/22/2015-OT
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct TaxesDated: 9th June. 2015
Subject: Condonation of delay in filing refund claim and claim of carry forward of losses under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act
In supersession of all earlier Instructions/Circulars/Guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (the Board) from time to time to deal with the applications for condonation of delay in tiling returns claiming refund and returns claiming carry forward of loss and set-off thereof under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act( the Act), the present Circular is being issued containing comprehensive guidelines on the conditions for condonation and the procedure to be followed tor deciding such matters.
2. The Principal Commissioners of Income-tax/Commissioners ofIncome-tax (Pr.CslT/CslT) shall be vested with the powers of acceptance/rejection of such applications/claims if the amount of such claims is not more than 10 lakhs for any one assessment year. The Principal Chief Commissioners of Income-tax/Chief Commissioners of Income-tax (Pr. CCsIT/CCsIT) shall be vested with the powers of acceptance rejection of such applications/ claims. if the amount of such claims exceeds 10 lakhs but is not more than 50 lakhs for any one assessment year. The applications/claims for amount exceeding Rs.50 lakhs shall be considered by the Board.
3. No condonation application for claim of refund/loss shall be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which such application claim is made. This limit of six years shall be applicable to all authorities having powers to condone the delay as per the above prescribed monetary limits, including the Board. A condonation application should be disposed of within six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by the competent authority, as far as possible.
4. In a case where refund claim has arisen consequent to a Court order, the period for which any such proceedings were pending before any Court of Law shall be ignored while calculating the said period of six years, provided such condonation application is filed within six months from the end of the month in which the Court order was issued or the end of financial year whichever is later.
5. The powers of acceptance/rejection of the application within the monetary limits delegated to the Pr. CCslT/CCslT/Pr.CsIT/CslT in case of such claims will be subject to following conditions:
(i) At the time of considering the case under Section 119(2)(b), it shall be ensured that. the income/loss declared and /or refund claimed is correct and genuine and also that the case is of genuine hardship on merits
(ii) The Pr. CCIT/CCIT/Pr.CIT/CIT dealing with the case shall be empowered to direct the jurisdictional assessing officer to make necessary inquiries or scrutinize the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act to ascertain the correctness of the claim.
6. A belated application for supplementary claim of refund (claim of additional amount of refund after completion of assessment for the same year) can be admitted for condonation provided other conditions as referred above are fulfilled. The powers of acceptance/rejection within the monetary limits delegated to the Pr. CCsIT/CCsIT/Pr. CsIT/CsIT in case of returns claiming refund and supplementary claim of refund would be subject to the following further conditions:
(i) The income of the assessee is not assessable in the hands of any other person under any of the provisions of the Act.
(ii) No interest will be admissible on belated claim of refunds.
(iii) The refund has arisen as a result of excess tax deducted/collected at source and/or excess advance tax payment and/or excess payment of self-assessment tax as per the provisions of the Act.
7. In the case of an applicant who has made investment in 8% Savings (Taxable) Bonds, 2003 issued by Government of India opting for scheme of cumulative interest on maturity but has accounted interest earned on mercantile basis and the intermediary bank at the time of maturity has deducted tax at source on the entire amount of interest paid without apportioning the accrued interest/IDS, over various financial years involved, the time limit of six years for making such refund claims will not be applicable.
8. This circular will cover all such applications/claims for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) which are pending as on the date of issue of the Circular.
9. The Board reserves the power to examine any grievance arising out of an order passed or not passed by the authorities mentioned in para 2 above and issue suitable directions to them for proper implementation of this Circular. However, no review of or appeal against the orders of such authorities would be entertained by the Board.
(Ekta Jain)
Deputy Secretary to Government of India
yes the time limit has to be removed as the government cannot take the money of the citizens quoting bad rules.It is illegal.I am surprised as there is no court directive in such similar situations.
I think the Government is not serious to combat the corruption as the un-necessary rules prevent the genuine tax payers to even deal with income tax office. There is no vested powers at lower levels issues the refund in case of salaried employees. It took so many years to get the refund if some clerical error remain in filed return. This type of applications should be processed after levying some small penalty for mistake. A person should not be required to visit IT office in this type of cases and refund below 25000/-or any limit as fixed by government and the same be processed electronically.
what is this genuine hardship?IT authorities ask for documentary evidence.this is ambiguous. suppose you are low paid(not exceeding the basic exemption limit from all sources) and tds deducted on incentives and you discover it later on then when you claim for refund they ask for documentary evidence of genuine hardship.
it’s seems like govt itself encouraging corruption, when such a teeth is give to the commissioner he’ll surely bite and again commission will be set for giving such permission on all the stages as to the commissioner and then the A.O and after that the assesseess will get “BABA G KA”……….Why not the authorities make the same without permission and if the IT itself feel correct then issue refund.
i really critcicise this move as it will lead to more corruption and nothing else
The time line of 6 years is not fair for claiming the genuine refund due to the assessee. For demand, there is no time limit at all, the department is adjusting demands of various years, in 2014-15 refund, but when it comes to refund why time limit, if the assessee can prove that this was not granted earlier, it should be given irrespective of time limit.
yes,time limit should be removed.
In para 1 quote “filing of returns claiming refund…”
Does returns means original returns or does it include revised returns also.
My humble views on the circular are:-
1. In para 3, the time limit of 6 years should be done away with as there is virtually no time limit for collection of demand and even written off demand can be collected upto 30 years. If the claim of assessee is genuine prima facie then it should be allowed irrespective of time elapsed.
2.in para 5(i) the words at the end”and also that the case is of genuine hardship on merits” require to be deleted as these are very subjective and will encourage rent seeking. If claim is correct it should be allowed.
3. In para 5(ii) either scrutiny of claim should by AO be in all cases or none to prevent misuse of discretionary powers. There is no time limit for AO to complete his scrutiny in such cases mentioned in the circular. As for normal scrutiny there is a time limit of 2 years there should be some time limit for to complete scrutiny in such cases maybe 1 month.
4. In para 6(ii) it is directed that no interest is allowable. This would not be fair and interest should be allowed as provided in I T Act. In case of demand
interest is charged for the entire period it remains outstanding.
5. Para 8 requires to be deleted . As pendency is attributable to the department for delay in disposal the circular in force at the time of application should be applied. This circular should apply only to applications received after the date of it’s issue to the public as retrospective application of circulars is not desirable or proper.
Condition 8 seems unreasoble as pending applications are to be considered as per existing guidelines.
When the department wants to give anything why the hell do they give the conditions why cant they be simple and straight forward.Why the time limit of 6 yrs . There are demand orders being raised by CPC since 2005 – 2006 and even 220 Interest is also being calculated. If six Yrs is for refund then it should be same for demands also.
The time line of 6 years is not fair. For demand, there is no time limit at all, the department is adjusting demands of 1999-2000, in 2014-15 refund, but when it comes to refund why time limit, if the assessee can prove that this was not granted earlier, it should be given irrespective of time.