Top-up
More news for toi a little less litigation
'Mayor filed false affidavit'
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.in/2015/10/dda-scheme-for-conversion.html
TDS refund harassment case
Court on its own Motion Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 2659/2012 ...
More often than not, the communication received from the
CPS (C?) by a taxpayer , in the format framed and being commonly adopted,
leaves him clueless as to what it is all about.; and why at all he had to be
sent such a communication even in respect of any one or years for which , as
per his record, he had every reason to honestly believe hence believed that the
assessment procedure has reached a stage of finality, once for all.
In the news
Reforms must ensure that fewer fresh cases are filed, while the backlog is cleared fast
A little less litigation: Reforms must ensure that fewer fresh cases are filed, while the backlog ...
Economic Times - 16 hours ago
'Mayor filed false affidavit'
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.in/2015/10/dda-scheme-for-conversion.html
October 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.27 OF 2014
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.27 OF 2014
Arun Ganesh Jogdeo .… Petitioner
V/s.
Union of India & Anr. …. Respondents
Mr. Arun Ganesh Jogdeo, the Petitioner, is
present in person.
Mr. P.C. Chhotaray a/w. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav,
i/by Mr. Sureshkumar, for the Respondents.
V/s.
Union of India & Anr. …. Respondents
Mr. Arun Ganesh Jogdeo, the Petitioner, is
present in person.
Mr. P.C. Chhotaray a/w. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav,
i/by Mr. Sureshkumar, for the Respondents.
CORAM : V.M. KANADE &
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.
DATE : 28 TH AUGUST, 2015 .
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.
DATE : 28 TH AUGUST, 2015 .
P.C.:
TDS refund harassment case
Court on its own Motion Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 2659/2012 ...
As Shared on Facebook
Looking, however, at what really happens , time and
again, is that for varying reasons and super imposingly attending
circumstances, such a belief , howsoever bona fide and unquestionable it is,
comes to be shattered to tiny pieces.
Should anyone take a conscious note of and keep in sharp
focus, the instances of hardships faced by taxpayers in the hands of the
Revenue, also give further independent thoughts thereto , such reasons or
circumstances leading to consequences, unintended or otherwise, could easily be
identified.
To dilate but briefly, (wprt the woes of a taxpayer
filing tax return SAY, as ‘individual’) :
1. Tax return filed manually by a taxpayer, - for a year
for which e’ filing has (d) not been mandatory,- for sake of convenience the
return gets uploaded on the CPC, for processing ; but far belatedly.
2. At the time of such uploading, by jurisdictional AO,
no PROPER care, as expected of, is taken to ensure that the record so uploaded
is correct and complete in all respects. For example, anyone or more OR all
details of tax withheld at source, and paid /payable due but not paid by the
deduct or (of TDS), OR paid as Advance tax or on self-assessment , to the
Government do not get uploaded. That results in/accounts for an inevitable but
easily avoidable, mismatch of the ‘tax payable’ and ‘tax paid’ ; which in turn,
leads to issue of a communication by the CPC showing unpaid demand/arrears of
tax; not warranted or justifiable though
3. Another instance , objectionable but not uncommon, and
often come across is that in which , because of a change in jurisdiction in the
interim, mostly internal /departmental but never made known to the taxpayer.
That explains why the jurisdictional AO as known to the taxpayer at the time of
filing tax return is not the same person (AO) by whom the record gets uploaded
on the CPC, which is made known to the taxpayer, for the first time,
simplistically through the communication issued to taxpayer, long after the
event of change in jurisdiction.
Is it not a tragedy, and highly regrettable, that despite
the fact that the HC has once again, been obliged to pin point to and impress upon the Revenue that the
looked-forward improvement in the tax administration is still left to be
desired, to the discomfort and hardship to the taxpayers?!
In short, it is one's firm conviction, there is still, a
nagging grave doubt lingering in the minds of taxpaying community as to whether
the CPC brought into being, and in place for quite some time now, could at all
be rightly considered to be convincingly a ‘boon’, NOT a ‘bane’, from its view
point, based on wishful thinking !
Over to tax experts in field practice, inviting to share
more information / thoughts on the foregoing lines, so as to prove useful to
the taxpaying public.
KEY NOTE
KEY NOTE
Paragraph 4
of the Bombay HC Judgment reads:
“4. The Income Tax
Department has filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply, in which it has been
submitted that the directions given by the Delhi High Court have been followed
in letter and spirit.”
The veracity / validity
of the statement so made / factual actual position as explicitly affirmed by
the Department, in its detailed reply affidavit, might, however, for obvious
reasons, be required to be gone into / investigated on a case to case
basis. Possibly may become suspect; particularly,
in those cases in which the Department is found to have not followed, strictly or
otherwise, the “letter and/or spirit” of the law, e.g. the unequivocally clear mandates
of the related provisions of the law (the IT Act).
Some of those provisions are: -
Section 143 - each of
its applicable sub-sections; essentially,sub-sections (1), (1a), so on
Section 143 (2)
Section 154
Section 205
Further, it ought not
to be over sighted that the time limits prescribed for initiation and / or conclusion
of any action by AO under each of those provisions are rigid; and if not read harmoniously , and strictly adhered
to, will inevitably render any adverse decision of / conclusion reached by AO, non-est; and not enforceable in law.
In the cited judgment,
in paragraph 5, the court’s observations of relevance have been reiterated and reinforced.
More significantly, the critical observations in paragraph 6 are noteworthy; that
reads:
“The Income Tax
authorities shall follow these directions in case of other cities, including
the city of Mumbai, in Maharashtra State. We hope and trust that the Income Tax
Department will be more vigilant and ensure that such mistakes will not occur
in future. We also direct the Income Tax Department to form a Vigilance Cell to
ensure that there is a monitoring authority, which would monitor various policy
decisions which are taken and a self auditing mechanism is required to be
formulated to ensure that the income tax assessees are not made to run from
pillar to post for the purpose of redressed of their grievances.”
KEY NOTE
In terms of sec 143
(1) (a), as clearly provided, an adjustment is not ‘permissible’, and cannot be
made, unless it is of the nature of,-
(A)
any arithmetical error; or
(B)
any “incorrect claim” within
the meaning of the Explanation (a) u/s
143 (1).
The said Explanation READS:
Explanation — For the purposes of this sub-section,—
(a) “an INCORRECT
claim APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION
IN the return” SHALL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE
BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN THE RETURN,—
(i) of
AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER
ITEM in such return;
(ii) in
respect of which the information required to be furnished under this Act to
substantiate such entry has not been so furnished; or
(iii) in
respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit
which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or
fraction;
(b) the
acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be the intimation in a case
where no sum is payable by, or refundable to, the assessee under clause (c),
and where no adjustment has been made under clause (a).”
- See more at: http://taxguru.in/income-tax/demand-1431-income-tax-department-rectification-thereof-154.html#sthash.udBmfzlx.dpuf
Accordingly, therefore, -
(A)
if taxpayer has received no “INTIMATION’ in the
prescribed form; and
within the prescribed time limit (1 year from the end of
assessment year) OR
(B)
any adjustment is made but is not strictly within the
scope/parameters as laid down;
the tax return filed
must be taken to have been accepted.
And as such, no tax
demand can be raised ; or in case of a claim for refund, that must be accepted and granted , with no
quarrel.
Now, if the above
referred Explanation were to be critically analysed:
In today’s changed
circumstances, - i.e. CPS, e’filing of
tax return, etc., in place, and with an automatic verification of arithmetical
accuracy having been inbuilt in CPS itself, an ‘arithmetical error’ , so also
any adjustment in regard thereto, can never arise.
As regards
‘incorrect claim’, the provision to the effect that, -
an entry in the return,
“ (ii) in respect of which the information required to be furnished
under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnished;” shall
constitute a ground /reason for AO to make an adverse adjustment is, to say the
least, bereft of any logic, or sane / sound reasoning. For, that flies in the face
of the very mandate of the law by virtue whereof an e’filed return has to be with
no attachment or annexure (even evidence of TDS.. Form 16, 16A,..) ; and as such, even if taxpayer wants, he is precluded / prohibited by the law from furnishing any supporting document/ evidence in regard to any claim /item/entry in the return.
To sum up:
Pithily stated, the Explanation, if were subjected to a critical scrutiny / intelligent and incisive analysis, in one's conviction, - as conceived of and framed, and brought on the statute book , ostensibly with no proper application of 'mind' or serious thought given, betrays the blatant ineptness, and uncouth imbecility, to the core, in its drafting.
(Leaving Unedited ; OPEN TO the tax law experts at large , in field practice, - particularly, if do not mind but are willing to share info., specific instances, etc., they may have come across, of contextual relevance , for the common good - freely volunteer and EDIT).
Cross Refer
PREV. BLOGS
(< Backwards - key words to access : 'TDS Woes')
KNOW about CPC
KNOW about CPC
www.simplifiedlaws.com › Salary ›
Refund/Demand/Rectification
Dec 18, 2014 - Article deals with frequently asked
question(FAQ) related to CPC Communication, Processing of Income
Tax Return by CPC, Filing of ...
Amendments to the procedure for processing of returns filed ...
Searches related to processing
of return by cpc
www.itatonline.org/info/?dl_id=985
1. Table of Contents. Page No. 1. General Questions. 3.
2. Forms. 7. 3. E Filing Process. 9. 4. Digital Signature. 13. 5. CPC.
17. 6. Revised Returns and ...
www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/.../DG_Systems_Handbook_FAQs.pdf
Jul 30, 2012 - Processing of Income-tax Return . .... Rectification return is under processing. ..... ITD→AST→Processing→CPC Interface→Status of Demand ...
PROCESSING OF RETURN BY CPC
Section
143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment ...
Tail NOte :
Mistakes should be examined, learned from, and discarded; not dwelled upon and stored. < ???????????????
-- Tim Fargo, writer and entrepreneur
Tail NOte :
Mistakes should be examined, learned from, and discarded; not dwelled upon and stored. < ???????????????
-- Tim Fargo, writer and entrepreneur
No comments:
Post a Comment