Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co., a firm of solicitors, filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 21 March 2011 from the Income Tax Department treating its electronically filed return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 as invalid. The petitioner had uploaded its return on 27 March 2010 on the official website and received an electronic acknowledgment with number 115760720270310. On 5 April 2010, as per the Department's instructions, the petitioner sent the ITRV form (duly signed by a partner) by ordinary post, as the instructions specifically stated that forms sent by Speed Post, Registered Post, or Courier would not be accepted. The form was required to be submitted by 30 September 2009 or within 60 days of electronic transmission, whichever was later. On 16 May 2010, the petitioner received a communication stating that the ITRV form had not been received and was called upon to furnish a copy by 31 March 2010 or within 120 days of uploading. The petitioner stated that it had sent the form under certificate of posting on 5 April 2010 and again on 18 May 2010. The Department, however, treated the return as invalid. The legal issue was whether the return could be treated as invalid when the assessee had complied with the Department's instructions to send the ITRV form by ordinary post and had a certificate of posting. The petitioner argued that it had done everything required and the non-receipt by the Department should not be held against it. The respondents contended that the ITRV form was not received. The Court held that the petitioner had complied with the instructions and had a certificate of posting, and therefore the return could not be treated as invalid. The Court directed the Department to process the return and not treat it as invalid. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Income Tax - E-filing of Return - Validity of Return - ITRV Form - The petitioner, a firm of solicitors, uploaded its return of income electronically and sent the ITRV form by ordinary post as per Department's instructions. The Department treated the return as invalid on the ground that the ITRV form was not received. The Court held that the return cannot be treated as invalid when the assessee complied with the instructions and has a certificate of posting, and directed the Department to process the return. (Paras 1-6) B) Administrative Law - Compliance with Instructions - Certificate of Posting - The Department's instructions required the ITRV form to be sent only by ordinary post. The petitioner sent the form by ordinary post and obtained a certificate of posting. The Court held that the petitioner had done everything required on its part, and the non-receipt by the Department cannot be attributed to the petitioner. (Paras 3-5) C) Income Tax - Return of Income - Time Limit for Filing ITRV - The Department's communication gave the petitioner time to furnish the ITRV form by 31 March 2010 or within 120 days of uploading. The Court noted that the petitioner had sent the form within the prescribed time and directed the Department to accept the return. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a return of income filed electronically can be treated as invalid on the ground that the ITRV form sent by ordinary post was not received by the Central Processing Centre, when the assessee complied with the Department's instructions to send it by ordinary post and has a certificate of posting.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the communication dated 21 March 2011, and directed the Income Tax Department to process the petitioner's return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 and not treat it as invalid. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- E-filing of income tax return
- ITRV form
- validity of return
- ordinary post
- certificate of posting
- natural justice
- administrative instructions
