Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Article Section

Home Articles Income Tax CA DEV KUMAR KOTHARI Experts This

An application for rectification should be deemed to have been granted, if the concerned authority had not responded on petition or has not rejected in writing within specified time

Submit New Article
An application for rectification should be deemed to have been granted, if the concerned authority had not responded on petition or has not rejected in writing within specified time
CA DEV KUMAR KOTHARI By: CA DEV KUMAR KOTHARI
April 9, 2016
All Articles by: CA DEV KUMAR KOTHARI       View Profile
  • Contents

Links for related articles by author:

https://www.taxmanagementindia.com/print/print_Article.asp?ID=6697

Rectification of mistake apparent from records- a rarely useful remedy for tax payers in spite of clear provisions- whether recent instructions of CBDT will help assesses?

https://www.taxmanagementindia.com/print/print_Article.asp?ID=6773

S.12AA – Recent Judgment of The Supreme Court about registration needs a reconsideration to avoid miscarriage of justice - because for inaction of authorities, an applicant should not suffer. This was a fit case for help of an Amicus Curie

Earlier articles:

In article by the same author,  on S.154 it was  discussed that  it is mandatory for the concerned authority that order should be passed on petition u/s 154, within specified period. The relevant provisions for an application by  assessee , so far concerning time bound duty of the office are reproduced below ( from sub-sections (2) and (8) of s.154 ): 

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned-

(a) xxxx

(b) shall make such amendment for rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice [by the assessee or by the deductor] [or by the collector ], and where the authority concerned is the [Commissioner (Appeals)], by the 6[Assessing] Officer also.

Time limit is also prescribed in a mandatory language:

[(8) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (7), where an application for amendment under this section is made [by the assessee or by the deductor] 23[or by the collector ]on or after the 1st day of June, 2001 to an income-tax authority referred to in sub-section (1), the authority shall pass an order, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by it,-

We find that the language used and procedural provisions of Section 154 are similar to S.12AA relating to order on an application for registration.

Can an application for rectification be deemed to have been granted?

Author has firm view that if the Assessing Officer (AO) or any other  authority before whom a valid petition for rectification of an order  is made, is no rejected in a written order communicate to the applicant, within the specified time, then it can be deemed that application has been granted.

This view of author find support from the judgment of the Supreme Court on S.12AA, referred to in another article. In that case the Supreme Court held that if the application for registration u/s 12AA is not acted upon and is not rejected, then it must be deemed to have been granted. The Supreme Court held that the Registration shall be deemed to have effect from end of six months from date of submission of application, author had expressed view that this require reconsideration because an applicant should not suffer for inaction of authority.  

Ground reality:

Ground reality faced by tax payers and practioners is that when a period of six months is lapsed, the assessee himself make another petition giving reference of earlier petition or the tax authority says that earlier petition is time barred, and insists upon assessee to make another petition, then only authority consider.

Just to maintain goodwill and good relations in other words, just not to annoy tax authority, Taxpayers makes a fresh application in hope that the authority shall pass a rectification order in his favour.

Directions and promises:

If we go by Circulars issued by CBDT and the citizens Charter of the I.T. Department we find that  although statutory limit  as laid down in  Subsection (8) of Section 154 of the Act each application under that Section has to be disposed of by passing appropriate order within 6 months from the end of the month in which application is received. The general promise as per  the Citizens Charter , service delivery standard in respect of deciding rectification application is two months.

In Instruction No. 3/2013 dated 05-07-2013 (F. No. 225/76/2013/ITA.II), the Central Board of Direct Taxes has also  stipulated just 2 months for disposal of rectification applications filed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act- 1961.

However, as discussed by author in earlier articles, the tax authorities have very casual approach towards rectification petitions and they are either not disposed of or are disposed of in casual manner by rejecting simply stating that there is no mistake apparent from records.

 One can insist deemed rectification:

Generally applications for rectification of orders are made after reasonable consideration of provisions, discussions and consultations with tax experts. Therefore, a possible view taken by applicant should be respected by tax authorities, unless the petition is frivolous one.

In view of mandatory language used in provisions, in case the tax authority does not respond to petitioner upon his petition for rectification within specified time of six month, the petitioner can insist that it must be deemed that the petition has been granted and rectification has been made, as per application.

We can find support from judgment of the Supreme Court and judgments referred to in judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts in the articles. Author feels that only if Courts held that rectification is deemed, then only authorities will take rectification petitions seriously.

Earlier articles:

Rectification of mistake apparent from records- a rarely useful remedy for tax payers in spite of clear provisions- whether recent instructions of CBDT will help assesses?

S.12AA – Recent Judgment of The Supreme Court about registration needs a reconsideration to avoid miscarriage of justice - because for inaction of authorities, an applicant should not suffer. This was a fit case for help of an Amicus Curie

 

By: CA DEV KUMAR KOTHARI - April 9, 2016

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates