Writ Petn. No. 2492 of 2014. Case: The Chamber of Tax Consultants Vs Union of India. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petn. No. 2492 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K. Shivaram, Ajay Singh, Rahul Sarda, Rahul Hakani and Neelam Jadhav, Advs. And For Respondents: Arvind Pinto |
| Judges | M.S. Sanklecha and N.M. Jamdar, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution Of India - Article 226; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 139, 234A, 234B, 234C, 295, 43B, 44AB, 80AC |
| Citation | (2014) 271 CTR 155 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | September 25, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Taken up for disposal by consent. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India:
(a) challenges Notification dt. 25th July, 2014 passed by the Government of India in exercise of powers under s. 295 r/w s. 44AB of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) introducing a new format for tax audit reports;
(b) seek a direction to the CBDT to extend the time for filing IT returns from 30th Sept., 2014 to 30th Nov., 2014. This is on the basis the time to furnish the audit report under s. 44AB of the Act has been extended from 30th Sept., 2014 to 30th Nov., 2014. This petition relates to asst. yr. 2014-15.
-
Dr. Shivaram, learned senior advocate for the petitioners has placed on record the order passed by the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court dt. 24th Sept., 2014 in Writ Petn. Nos. 25443 & 26306 to 26310 of 2014. He submitted that the Gujarat High Court has also issued directions permitting the assessees to file Return of Income till 30th Nov., 2014, on payment of interest. He submitted that the copy of the order passed by the Gujarat High Court is not yet available.
-
Dr. Shivaram, after arguing the matter for some time, submitted that in view of the orders passed by the Madras High Court and the Gujarat High Court, petitioner's grievance will be satisfied if CBDT is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners. Dr. Shivaram submitted that if the date of filing of return of income is not extended to coincide with the date of filing of tax audit report, which is already extended to 30th Nov., 2014, serious practical difficulties will follow. He submitted that the members of the Petitioners' Associations as well as the assessees in general will be put to great inconvenience. Mr. Arvind Pinto learned counsel for the Revenue, opposed the grant of any relief by this Court but is not averse to the matter being considered by CBDT on its own merits.
-
The petitioners have listed the prejudice that would be caused by non-extension of date of filing of return of Income to 30th Nov., 2014 as under:
(a) The new proforma of tax audit under s. 44AB requires the tax auditor to examine and report on 27 additional aspects of assessees accounts for the purpose of tax audit. This examination would require time and the audit would not normally be complete before the date of filing return on 30th Sept., 2014. This it is submitted would result in the petitioners declaring an...
To continue reading
Request your trial