2025 (3) TMI 1233 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioner's Tax Return Challenge: Court Orders Rectification Process Under Section 44AB for Missing Tax Audit Report by April 2025.

The Bombay HC addressed a petition challenging an order by CPC Bengaluru, which deemed the petitioner's tax return for 2023-24 defective due to a missing ... Treating the return filed as defective return u/s 139 (9) - petitioner has not filed the tax audit report as required u/s 44AB - HELD THAT:- If the petitioner can access the system of the respondents to download the impugned order, we fail to understand why the respondents cannot access the said order and reject the rectification application on the ground that the base order is not available. This requires a serious investigation into the IT system of the respondents because the said incompetency would be against the efforts of the Government for transmission to electronic mode of adjudication of the disputes under the Act. Without going into the larger controversy, we direct the petitioner of the petition which is the order treating the return as invalid with respondent no.2 within one week from the date of uploading the present order. The petitioner is also directed to file a copy of ITR Form uploaded with the system of the respondents and the return which respondent no.1 has treated as defective. On receipt of the petitioner filing above documents, respondent no.2 will dispose of the rectification petition filed by the petitioner vide letter dated 25 November 2024. The said rectification petition should be disposed of after giving petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The rectification order should be passed on or before 30 April 2025. This petition for assessment year 2023-24 challenges an order treating the petitioner's return as a 'defective return' under Section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act for failure to file the tax audit report as required by Section 44AB. After the impugned order, the petitioner filed a rectification petition (25 Nov 2024), which the revenue declined by email stating that 'the rectification petition cannot be entertained since there is no base order available on the system to be rectified.' The court found this reasoning unacceptable given that the petitioner was able to download the impugned order from the respondents' system, raising concerns about the respondents' IT system and electronic adjudication processes. The court directed the petitioner to file the impugned order pages (112-114), the ITR form as uploaded, and the return treated as defective with respondent no.2 within one week. Respondent no.2 must then 'dispose of the rectification petition' after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and pass the rectification order on or before 30 April 2025. Petition disposed accordingly.