TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of Solicitors challenging Income Tax Department's communication on return validity, emphasizing procedural compliance.</h1> <h3>M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co Versus Union of India & Ors Petitioner.</h3> M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co Versus Union of India & Ors Petitioner. - [2012] 343 ITR 232 Issues:Challenge to communication deeming return of income invalid due to ITRV form not received by Income Tax Department.Interpretation of Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding defective returns.Consequences of treating a return as invalid and powers of the Assessing Officer.Analysis:The Petitioner, a firm of Solicitors, challenged a communication deeming their return of income invalid as the ITRV form was not received by the Income Tax Department. The Petitioner uploaded the return for Assessment Year 2009-10 electronically and sent the ITRV form by ordinary post as per Department instructions. Despite multiple submissions of the form, the Department claimed non-receipt, leading to the invalidation of the return.Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act allows the Assessing Officer to intimate and provide an opportunity to rectify defects in a return within a specified period. Failure to rectify renders the return invalid, subject to the Assessing Officer's discretion to condone delays before assessment. The Act specifies conditions for a valid return, including proper filling of income computation details.Treating a return as invalid has significant repercussions, prompting Parliament to provide mechanisms for rectification and validation by the Assessing Officer. In this case, the Court found the Department's communication misconceived as the Petitioner had followed prescribed procedures for electronic filing and ITRV submission. Consequently, the Court directed the Petitioner to file the verification of the return before the Assessing Officer within a week, quashing the erroneous order dated 21 March 2011.The judgment highlights the importance of adherence to procedural requirements in income tax filings and the Assessing Officer's discretionary powers in addressing defects in returns. The Court's intervention in rectifying the erroneous communication underscores the need for procedural fairness and compliance with statutory provisions to prevent unwarranted consequences for taxpayers.
TaxTMI 