Saturday, July 27, 2013

ITR V Ack. - requirement to send to CPC a signed print out of- Its attendant woes

Read >

What is ITR-V, Time Limit, where to submit and what if not submitted within time on TaxGuru!

Also Read besides,of others, following comment:

Despite indications, the requirement of forwarding to the CPC the system generated ITR V, signed, still remains to be dispensed with. This is a requirement which is believed to be to ensure the ‘authenticity’ of the filed return. As common sense should dictate the said reason does not seem to hold water. Besides, that failure to file and get an ack.(there could be many slips between the cup and the lip) would have the dire consequence of being treated as a case of no -return -filed and hence filing of a return once more is a must verges on a ‘no-sense’ compulsion. Once the system produced Ack. No. is received and in possession of tax payer, to be produced if and when so required specifically, the return filed and on record ought not to be as ‘no-return’, but be considered as an authentic one, with no attendant consequence whatsoever. What needs to be noted is that is really so and will be in parity with in regard to return used to be manually filed but for the new mandate of e’filing. In this context, the mindless litigation /court case reported* not long ago has left taxpayers with a bitter memory. In that case, the department with no rhyme or sane reason stuck to its stance/gun; albeit on its own admission, a return had been filed, it was so repeatedly affirmed, and reiterated to have been filed by a leading law firm, and was very much on record.
It is high time that the Revenue , in such matters, gives up its hyper-technical attitude once for all but evinces a sense of fair play for the benefit of by and large honest tax paying community.


@Amit, Panchal,…

A look at the department’s website, on – “ITR-V Do’s Don’ts”, that “a sealed A-4 envelope” is a must finds no mention.
Instead, what is mentioned is that “Only A-4 white paper should be used”

The author of the write-up may please check and clarify. Also this anamoly may have to be pinpointed to the Department. That should help and go a long way in saving those tax payers from any unwarranted harssment should the ITR-V be reported to be “Not Received” despite it having been sent but because of having been sent in a smaller envelope.

No need to add :This is just one of the woes being faced with by the taxpayers in the aftermath of the setup of so called – CPC, exemplarrily noted and marked with incompleteness and deficiencies galore.

If perceptively observed, in today’s context,in which the social evils such as perjury,forging signatures and supposed -to-be legal documents, so on, have come to be in vogue alarmingly, the sanity or otherwise of the emphasis placed by the Department on the simplicitic requirement of a signed ITR-V to be brought on record , by any standard, ought to be given a second look and dispensed with; sooner the better.

For that matter, knowing the widely predvailing corrupt mindsets/ prasctices, perhaps, even requitement to affix a ‘digital signature’ on tax retrn, etc., may not prove, contrary to the underlying belief of beauracts, a safe-proof or foolproof safeguard against the anticipated “incompleteness” in mind.

> Over to technocrats for any profoundly useful feedback or suggestions to protect the Revenue but at the same time with the least discomfiture to the honest taxpayers.

  1. *M/S. Crawford Bayley & Co vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 December ...

    Dec 1, 2011 - Bombay High Court. M/S. Crawford Bayley & Co vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 December, 2011. Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, A.A. Sayed.
Sad Commentary

Xcerpts from HC Judgment >

<The return is therefore, treated as invalid. By letters dated 1 April 2011 and 11 May 2011 the Petitioner once again reiterated that the ITR-V Form had been transmitted on 5 April 2010, 18 May 2010 and 18 May 2010. Furthermore it was pointed out to the Department that though on 5 April 2010 a representative had been deputed to Bangalore to deliver the Form, she was not allowed to meet the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in the Central Processing Centre.

5. The Court is informed that the problem has arisen in the present case since for Assessment Year 2009-10 Dmt 5 wp2004-11 arrangements were not made by the Income Tax Department for verification of returns uploaded electronically by digital signature. Such an arrangement has now been made from Assessment Year 2011-12. >

No comments:

Post a Comment