{"id":15642,"date":"2021-01-12T09:27:31","date_gmt":"2021-01-12T03:57:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/?p=15642"},"modified":"2021-01-12T10:10:12","modified_gmt":"2021-01-12T04:40:12","slug":"cbdt-rejects-representations-for-further-extension-of-due-date-for-filing-roi-tar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/cbdt-rejects-representations-for-further-extension-of-due-date-for-filing-roi-tar\/","title":{"rendered":"CBDT Rejects Representations For Further Extension Of Due Date For Filing ROI & TAR"},"content":{"rendered":"

As directed by the Gujarat High Court in The All India Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants Vs. Union of India<\/a>, the CBDT has passed an order under section 119 of the Act dated 11th January 2021 on the the issue of extension of due dates for filing of Audit Report under section 44AB of the Income tax Act. <\/p>\n

The CBDT has rejected the representation for further extension of the due date. It is stated that the Government of India has been very empathetic to the needs of the taxpayers as compared various other countries. No other country has extended the due dates as much as India. Even countries
\nwhich are comparatively worse hit by COVID-19, like the USA, UK etc., have provided no or lesser extensions in due dates.<\/p>\n

It is also stated that filing of tax returns\/audit reports are essential part of the obligations of assessee and cannot be delayed indefinitely. Many functions of the Income-tax Department start only after the filing of the returns by the assessee.<\/p>\n

Any further extension would adversely affect the return filing discipline and shall also cause injustice to those who have taken pains to file the return before the due date. It would also postpone the collection of revenue thereby hampering the efforts of the Government to provide relief to the poor during these COVID times.<\/p>\n

Click here to download the order passed by the CBDT<\/a><\/div>\n

F.NO. 370153\/39\/2020-TPL
\nGOVERNMENT OF INDIA
\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE
\nDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
\n(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)
\n(TAX POLICY AND LEGISLATION DIVISION)
\n***********
\nNew Delhi, 11th January, 2021
\nORDER UNDER SECTION 119 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
\nThe Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide judgement dated 8 th January, 2021 in
\nthe case of The All India Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants Vs. Union of India,
\nSCA 13653 of 2020, has directed the Ministry of Finance to look into the issue of
\nextension of due dates for filing of Audit Report under section 44AB of the Income
\ntax Act more particularly the representation dated 12.10.2020 and take an
\nappropriate decision in accordance with law.
\n2. In the wake of the global pandemic due to COVID-19 the due dates for filing
\nof income tax returns for A.Y. 2020-21 was extended vide the Taxation and Other
\n_laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (which was
\nenacted on 29th September,2020) to 30th November, 2020. Subsequently, vide
\nnotification s.o. 3906(E) dated 29th October, 2020 the due dates for filing of returns
\nwere further extended to 31st January, 2021 for cases in which tax audit report
\nunder section 44AB of the Income tax Act (“the Act”) is required to be filed and 31 st
\nDecember, 2020 for all other cases. Further vide notification S.O. 4805 (E) dated
\n31st December, 2020 the above due dates were further extended to 15th February,
\n2021 and 10th January, 2021 respectively.
\n3. As per the provlslOns of the Act the due date for filing of the audit report
\nunder section 44AB is one month prior to the due date of filing of income tax
\nreturn. Therefore, the said due date was extended to 31st October, 2020 vide the
\nTaxation and Other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act,
\n2020, 31st December, 2020 vide notification s.o. 3906(E) dated 29th October, 2020
\nand further to 15th January, 2020 vide notification s.o. 4805 (E) dated 31st
\nDecember, 2020.
\n4. The due dates for payment of self-assessment tax, for taxpayers whose
\namount due does not exceed rupees one lakh, also coincide with the due dates for
\nfiling of income tax returns. The table below summarises the various due date
\nextensions given: –<\/p>\n

5. Thus, it is apparent that the Government has not only considered
\nrepresentations of various stakeholders but also has been proactive in providing
\nrelaxation to the taxpayers by extending due dates regularly. The table below gives
\nthe statistical data comparing the return filing statistics of A.Y. 2019-20 and A.Y.
\n2020-21<\/p>\n

From the above table, it is apparent that the number of returns filed this year has
\nalready exceeded the number of returns filed last year up to 31 st August which was
\nthe last day of filing of the all the returns other than the company\/tax audit
\nreturns, by about 6%.
\nThe table below gives the statistical data comparing the filing statistics of tax audit
\nreport for A.Y. 2019-20 and A.Y. 2020-21-<\/p>\n

6. The above table also show that majority of the audit reports under section
\n44AB of the Act as well as income tax returns are filed within the last few days of
\nthe dates only. For A.Y. 2019-20 it is seen that 24% of total audit reports were filed
\nin last 3 days before the due date. Therefore, lesser filing compliances having been
\nmade much before the due date cannot be said to be an anomalous situation.
\n7. A look at the relaxation of similar nature provided by other economies globally
\nmakes it clear that the Government of India has been very empathetic to the needs
\nof the taxpayers as compared various other countries. It is apparent from the table
\nno other country has extended the due dates as much as India. Even countries
\nwhich are comparatively worse hit by COVID-19, like the USA, UK etc., have
\nprovided no or lesser extensions in due dates. The table below lists such extensions
\ngiven by a few countries: –<\/p>\n

8. From the above it may be seen that Government has been proactive in
\nanalyzing the situation and providing relief to assessee. However, it should also be
\nappreciated that filing of tax returns\/audit reports are essential part of the
\nobligations of assessee and cannot be delayed indefinitely. Many functions of the
\nIncome-tax Department start only after the filing of the returns by the assessee.
\nFiling of tax returns by assessee also results in collections of taxes either through
\npayment of self-assessment tax by the assessee or by the subsequent collection by
\nthe department post processing or assessment of the tax returns. The tax
\ncollections assume increased significance in these difficult times and Government of
\nIndia needs revenue to carry out relief work for poor and other responsibilities. Any
\ndelay in filing returns affects collection of taxes and other welfare functions of the
\nstate for the vulnerable and weaker sections of society which is funded through the
\nrevenue collected. Sufficient time has already been given to taxpayers to file their
\ntax returns and a large number of taxpayers have already filed their returns of
\nincome.
\n9. From the above discussion, it is apparent that,-
\n\u2022 The due dates for filing of return\/tax audit have already been extended on 3
\noccasions.
\n\u2022 Intern ationally, the extension provided by India is more generous as \u2022
\ncompared to other countries.
\n\u2022 The return filing statistics of the current year indicates that returns filed in
\nthis financial year already far exceeds the returns filed which were due on the
\nlast date of filing of returns.
\nAny further extension would adversely affect the return filing discipline and shall
\nalso cause injustice to those who have taken pains to file the return before the due
\ndate. It wou ld also postpone the collection of revenue thereby hampering the efforts
\nof the Government to provide relief to the poor during these COVID times.
\n10. In this regard, the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have also been
\nconsidered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. v. N.
\nSubbarayudu, (2008) 14 see 702 at page 703:
\n((5. In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the
\ncut-off date is fIXed by the executive authority keeping in view the
\neconomic conditions, financial constraints and many other
\nadministrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is
\nalso of the view that fixing cut-off dates is within the domain of
\nthe executive authority and the court should not normally interfere
\nwith the fvcation of cut-off date by the executive authority unless
\nsuch order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory
\nand arbitrary. (See State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal [(2005) 6
\nSCC 754 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 91 OJ.
\n***
\n7. There may be various considerations In the mind of the
\nexecutive authorities due to which a particular cut-off date has
\nbeen fvced. These considerations can be financial, administrative
\nor other considerations. The court must exercise judicial restraint
\nand must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fvc the
\ncut-off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and
\nf ree play at the joints in this connection.
\n8. In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of
\ns aying that the choice of a cut-off date cannot be dubbed as
\narbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the
\ncounter-affidavit filed by the Government (unless it is shown to be
\ntotally capricious or whimsical), vide State of Bihar v. Rarnjee
\nPrasad [(1990) 3 SCC 368 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 51J , Union of India v.
\nSudhir Kumar Jaiswal [(1994) 4 SCC 212: 1994 SCC (L&S) 925:
\n(1 994) 27 ATC 561J (vide SCC para 5), Ramrao v. All India
\nBackward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn. [(2004) 2 SCC 76
\n: 2004 SCC (L&S) 337J (vide SCC para 31), University Grants
\nCommission v. Sadhana Chaudhary [(1996) 10 SCC 536 : 1996
\nSCC (L&S) 1431 J , etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason
\nhas been given in the counter-affidavit of the Government or the
\nexecutive authority as to why a particular cut-off date has been
\nchosen, the court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary
\nand violative of Article 14 unless the said cut-off date leads to
\nsome blatantly capricious or outrageous result. JJ
\n11. In fact several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have gone to the
\nextent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even
\nif no particu lar reason is given for the same in the counter affidavit filed by the
\nGovernment, (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical). [State of
\nBihar vs. Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC 368, Union of Indian & Anr. vs. Sudhir
\nKumar JaiswaI1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para 5), Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India
\nBackward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 76 (vide
\npara 31), Un iversity Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996(10)
\nSCC 536, etc .] When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no
\nmathematical or logical way of fIxing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or
\nits delegated must be accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide off the
\nreasonable mark. (See Union of India & Anr. v. Mis Parameshwaran match works
\nLtd., 1975 (2) SCR 573, at p. 579; and Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma etc. etc. v. State
\nof Rajastha n & Ors. 1985 (3) SCR 243, at p. 269)
\n12. In view of the above reasons, all the representations for further extension of the
\ndue date a re hereby rejected.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As directed by the Gujarat High Court in The All India Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants Vs. Union of India<\/a>, the CBDT has passed an order under section 119 of the Act dated 11th January 2021 on the the issue of extension of due dates for filing of Audit Report under section 44AB of the Income tax Act.<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-information","category-others"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15642","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}