Patna High Court
Mukesh Kumar Gupta vs The Central Board Of Direct Taxes ... on 30 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7593 of 2022
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar Gupta son of Indradeo Prasad Gupta having his place of
business at namely M/s Kavita Medicine at Chawk Bajar, Munger- 811201
through its authorized representative namely Shri Vikash Saraf male aged
about 42 years son of Late Bijay Agrawal resident of Bekapur, Shivaji
Chowk, Munger- 811201.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (Income Tax) North Block, New Delhi
through Its Chairman.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Jharkhand,
Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhagalpur.
4. The Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(4), Income Tax Department, Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Gautam Kumar Kejriwal
Alok Kumar Jha,
Mukund Kumar
Ekta Rani, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 30-08-2023
1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the non
processing of the return, which would enable a refund.
2. Suffice it to notice the brief facts of the case,
which commences from a return filed for the relevant
assessment year 2010-11. The ITR-V acknowledgment is
produced at Annexure-3, which the petitioner took a printout
from the portal. The petitioner was obliged to send the ITR-V in
its physical form within 120 days to the Centralised Processing
Patna High Court CWJC No.7593 of 2022 dt.30-08-2023
Centre at Bengaluru (for brevity, 'CPC'). The said stipulation is
also found in Annexure-3. The petitioner contends that he sent
the ITR-V within 120 days and then followed it up with another,
which is seen at Annexure-4, which was received at the CPC on
23.8.2012. The petitioner was also issued with Annexure - C,
which indicates that the return filed has been sent for processing
to the Assessing Officer.
3. The petitioner sent repeated reminders upon
which Annexure-9 was issued by the Income Tax Officer,
specifically, pointing out that ITR-V was received only on
23.8.2012 after the expiry of one year from the end of the
relevant assessment year, which is not permissible as per the
Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer also issued a
communication to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
with notice to the assessee, pointing out the aforesaid error of a
delayed filing of ITR-V, which justified the refusal to further
process the return.
4. The assessee places reliance on Annexure-2,
circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance
dated 09.05.2016, which permitted delayed ITR-V forms also to
be filed within 31.08.2016 upon which there was also a further
provision to carry out the processing of returns.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7593 of 2022 dt.30-08-2023
5. In the present case the petitioner had filed a return
on 23.08.2012, which has been acknowledged by Annexure-4
by the CPC and also admitted in Annexures 9 and 10
communications issued.
6. In such circumstances, we set aside Annexure 10
and the findings therein, in so far as the delayed ITR-V having
been submitted which justified the non processing of the return.
We direct the Assessing Officer to process the return in
accordance with law and in accordance with Annexure 2
circular.
7. The writ petition would stand allowed. But,
however, making it clear that we have, merely, stated that the
assessee has a claim of refund and we have not considered the
same on merits, which has to be considered by the Assessing
Officer.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
Spd/-Shiv
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 01.09.2023
Transmission Date N/A
