The CBDT has issued Instruction No. 18/2013 dated 17.12.2013 stating that there are several instances where due to technical or other reasons the intimation in refund cases could not be sent to the assessees within the time limit prescribed in the second proviso to s. 143(1) of the Act. To alleviate the grievance caused to the assessee, the CBDT has exercised its powers u/s 119(2)(a) of the Act to extend the time frame prescribed in the second proviso to s. 143(1) and directed the AOs to grant the refund subject to conditions.
Download CBDT Instruction U/s 119(2)(a) Extending Period For Issue Of Refund (929.8 KiB, 5,228 hits)
@vswami > Words to be underlined , pinpointing the commented fallacy, are, – ….Demand is shown as payable in the return of income…
Rider > This is a circular issued with specific reference to Sec 143 (1) Intimation in cases of refunds claimed. As such, certain of the contents , particularly in its Para. 4 seem to be lacking in clarity:
1, In what circumstances, if the same remained pending beyond the prescribed date, could conceivably be, as implied, due to reasons attributable to the assessee?
2, “…to those cases where Demand is shown as payable in the return of income…” (Noted fallacy is in the underlined expression).
As is readily imagined, may be, the blame is on bad English or hasty and mindless drafting; if there has been any misconception, open to correction.
No wonder that a veteran exponent of and renowned expert on tax laws, used to lament remorsefully over the long prevalent incomprehensibility of the language used in statutes and related matters, mainly coming in the way of clear understanding and effective implementation of them.
< Contd.
For an elaboration, refer the article @
http://www.ourkarnataka.com/Articles/law/ignlaw09.htm
IGNORANCE OF LAW – IS NO EXCUSE, OR IS IT BLISS ?
A gist of he above referred judicial view may be found in the concluding portion of it.
Offhand Reactions >
Any such relaxation of ‘time period’ prescribed by law has growingly become the compulsion of our times, for several reasons; albeit, not necessarily or always justifiable on the not-so-uncommon defensive pleas, such as, -“beyond control’, ‘not without reasonable cause’, ‘good reasons to believe’, ‘in good faith’, so on . Predominant of them all is the reality faced with, – invariably by everyone with a vested interest or direct concern , or whatever, not only the implementing /enforcing statutory authorities but also those required to be aware and vigilant enough so as strictly follow, comply (taxpayers and their consultants)- having always too much “on the plate” and “no time”. In this context, one is tempted to recall a like instance; reference is to the judicial view (of the apex court at that) taken for a practical reason to the effect that there being an overwhelmingly large number of enactments, rules and regulations, most of those admittedly riddled with complicity, complexity, incomprehensibility, etc., taxpayer ( or his professional adviser) ought not be expected to know each and every one of them, much less in its details, hence not be visited with adverse consequence of official action for imposition of penalty even if mandated by the law. That is , in a manner of saying, tantamount to rewriting the age-old belief , -“ignorance of law is no excuse”.
Notwithstanding that, those, though in a poor minority, attuned to a puritanical view, may strive to press for otherwise; drawing support from , e.g. Ignorance may be bliss, but it’s not an acceptable excuse (m.thepostnewspapers.com/…/article_d33ff235-f95f-5fd8-ae41-c496967…). In sum, it says, Ignorance may be bliss, but it’s not an acceptable excuse … from an amusingly dubbed “Affordable Care Act” appear hardly affordable for man…
May be contd.