Court rules no specific filing period for Income Tax Returns, no undue prejudice to petitioner, upholds executive policy decision.

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that there is no constitutional or statutory right to a specific filing period for Income Tax Returns (ITR), no undue prejudice to the petitioner, and no basis to interfere with the executive's policy decision. The court directed future availability of forms for Audit Reports and ITR from 1st April of the assessment year, unless valid reasons are provided.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the due date for filing Income Tax Returns (ITR) under Section 139(1) is a constitutional and statutory right of the assessee.
2. Whether the delay in notifying the prescribed Income Tax Forms under Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, is unconstitutional.
3. Whether the respondents should extend the due date for filing ITR and furnishing Audit Reports due to the delay in form notification.
4. Whether the Press Release dated 09.09.2015, which did not extend the due date for filing ITR for certain categories of assessees, is null and void.
5. Whether the petitioner has suffered any prejudice due to the non-extension of the due date for filing ITR.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Constitutional and Statutory Right of the Assessee
The petitioner sought a declaration that the due date for filing ITR under Section 139(1) is a constitutional and statutory right. However, the court found no provision in the statute or rules prescribing a specific period of 180 days for filing ITR. The court noted that the due date is determined by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for the extension of the due date if necessary for proper management of assessment and revenue collection.

Issue 2: Delay in Notifying Prescribed Forms
The petitioner argued that the delay in notifying the prescribed forms under Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was unconstitutional. The court observed that the forms were prescribed on 29th July 2015 and made available from 7th August 2015. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any statutory or constitutional right to a specific period for filing ITR after the forms were made available.

Issue 3: Extension of Due Date
The petitioner contended that the due date should be extended due to the delay in form notification. The court noted that the audit of accounts could commence from 1st April 2015, and the time from 29th July or 7th August 2015 to 30th September 2015 was sufficient for filing ITR. The court found no unreasonable shortness in the time available for filing ITR and held that the petitioner did not suffer any prejudice due to the non-extension of the due date.

Issue 4: Validity of Press Release Dated 09.09.2015
The petitioner challenged the Press Release dated 09.09.2015, which did not extend the due date for filing ITR for certain categories of assessees. The court held that such decisions are policy matters within the executive domain. The court found no infringement of vested rights or undue prejudice to the petitioner and declined to interfere with the policy decision.

Issue 5: Prejudice to the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that practitioners were busy filing returns for assessees with a due date of 31st July, extended to 7th September, leaving little time for those with a due date of 30th September. The court held that executive decisions should not be interfered with unless they cause undue prejudice or infringe rights. The court found no prejudice to the petitioner and dismissed the petition.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no statutory or constitutional right to a specific period for filing ITR, no undue prejudice to the petitioner, and no grounds to interfere with the executive's policy decision. The court directed the respondents to ensure that forms for the Audit Report and ITR are available from 1st April of the assessment year in future, unless valid reasons are recorded.

---