Revenue directed to accept manual ITR-2 filings from private discretionary trusts for AY 2021-22 to 2023-24 under Sec.139(1)

HC directed revenue authorities to permit private discretionary trusts to file returns for AY 2021-22 to 2023-24 in Form ITR-2 manually, treating such filings as valid under Sec.139(1), and ordered respondents to accept manual ITR-2 filings for all private discretionary trusts until the CBDT amends the e-filing system. The Court found the respondents' earlier instructions vague, noted CBDT is updating the system, and reaffirmed that private discretionary trusts are to be assessed as individuals consistent with prior HC rulings and CBDT guidance.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether a private discretionary trust is required to file its income-tax return in Form ITR-5 or is entitled to file in Form ITR-2 under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. Whether an electronic filing system's non-acceptance of Form ITR-2 for assessment years from 2021-22 onwards can override statutory provisions and the law laid down by courts regarding classification and assessment of private discretionary trusts.

3. Whether relief in the form of permitting manual/paper-mode filing of Form ITR-2 for private discretionary trusts is appropriate pending systemic or legislative changes by the tax administration (CBDT), and whether such relief may be extended to similarly situated trusts.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement of private discretionary trusts to file Form ITR-2 (Legal framework)

Legal framework: Taxation of private discretionary trusts is governed by provisions of the Income-tax Act including sections dealing with beneficiaries, trustees and assessment; returns are to be filed under Section 139(1). Administrative guidance (CBDT circulars) and the e-filing format(s) purport to prescribe the appropriate ITR form.

Precedent Treatment: Earlier High Court decisions and an existing CBDT circular have treated certain private discretionary trusts as to be considered and assessed akin to individual persons for purposes of tax computation and entitlement to chapter/ slab benefits; the Court relies on those authorities as applicable.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court finds that, as per the position of law reflected in the precedents and circular, private discretionary trusts have been regarded as individuals for assessment purposes up to the assessment year 2020-21. Consequently, the substantive entitlement to be assessed and to claim benefits available to individuals cannot be displaced merely by an administrative instruction shifting e-filing to Form ITR-5. The Court treats the legal characterisation established by judicial decisions and the circular as determinative of the form in which returns ought to be acceptable under the statute.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court's determination that private discretionary trusts are entitled to be treated as individuals for assessment purposes and therefore entitled to file returns in Form ITR-2 (where legally appropriate) is central to the decision. Obiter - Observations about the need for legislative amendment or further clarification by the Board, insofar as they are advisory about future action, are incidental.

Conclusions: Private discretionary trusts are entitled, under the law and settled judicial treatment relied upon by the Court, to be assessed consistent with individual status and to have their returns accepted in Form ITR-2 as filed under Section 139(1), subject to procedural implementation addressed below.

Issue 2: Effect of e-filing system's non-acceptance and whether system constraints can override statutory and judicially declared rights

Legal framework: Statutory right to file returns under Section 139(1) and the requirement that administrative mechanisms facilitate compliance; administrative rules and ITR form prescriptions operate subject to the Act and judicial interpretations.

Precedent Treatment: The Court reiterates the principle that administrative or systemic mechanisms cannot override statutory provisions or the law laid down by courts.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court concludes that non-acceptance by an electronic system is a procedural/systemic failure and cannot alter substantive rights under the statute. The electronic platform is a mode of filing and cannot dictate substantive tax treatment or the applicability of specific ITR forms where law and precedent entitle the assessee to a particular form. Therefore, the respondents cannot rely on system constraints to deny the petitioner the ability to file in the form mandated by law/precedent.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Systemic inability to accept a legally entitled form does not validly extinguish the statutory entitlement; administration must provide alternate means. Obiter - Comments on the time-consuming nature of system changes and the administrative process are explanatory.

Conclusions: The electronic filing system's non-acceptance cannot prevail over statutory provisions and judicially declared rights; affected private discretionary trusts must be provided a viable alternative to exercise their rights under Section 139(1).

Issue 3: Appropriateness and scope of interim relief permitting manual filing of Form ITR-2 and extension to similarly situated trusts

Legal framework: Courts may grant interim or declaratory relief to ensure statutory rights are effective where administrative processes impede compliance; CBDT has administrative competence to issue directions and to modify systems or accept paper returns pending systemic changes.

Precedent Treatment: The Court relies on the accepted practice that where systemic/formal impediments prevent compliance, administrative or judicially directed accommodations (such as condonation of delay or manual acceptance) are permissible to give effect to substantive rights.

Interpretation and reasoning: Noting that CBDT acknowledges the need to enable appropriate filing and that system changes are underway but time-consuming, the Court directs respondent authorities to permit manual/paper filing of Form ITR-2 for the specified assessment years and to accept such filings as returns under Section 139(1). The Court frames the relief both for the petitioner and in rem - extending to all private discretionary trusts whose electronic filings in ITR-2 are not accepted by the system. The Court limits itself from directing systemic amendments but requires acceptance of manual returns until the e-filing system is suitably amended.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Directing manual acceptance of ITR-2 returns for private discretionary trusts until the e-filing system is amended is a operative part of the judgment and constitutes binding relief in the matter. Obiter - Remarks urging CBDT to expedite systemic changes and legislative enablement are advisory.

Conclusions: The Court grants relief permitting manual filing and acceptance of Form ITR-2 for the assessment years in question and directs that all private discretionary trusts similarly affected be entitled to file ITR-2 manually until the e-filing system is amended; no order as to costs was made.

Cross-references and implementation

1. The conclusions flow from the Court's application of statutory provisions, reliance on existing judicial treatment and administrative circulars recognising the individual's assessment position for private discretionary trusts, and the principle that administrative systems cannot abrogate statutory entitlements.

2. The relief is interim/implementational in nature: respondents are enjoined to accept manual returns in Form ITR-2 and to issue necessary directions to officers; the Court refrains from making directions on the detailed process of system amendment but expects CBDT to address legislative/rule amendments and system enablement.

---