IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, Niral R. Mehta, JJ.
Kilburn Chemicals Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director Of Income Tax & Anr.- Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 4599 of 2024
Decided On : 22-07-2024
Taxation - Income Tax Act - Sections 139(9), 44AB - The court interpreted the provisions regarding defective returns and tax audit requirements, concluding that exceptional items do not constitute gross receipts, thus invalidating the order declaring the return as defective.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public limited company, filed a return of income declaring 'Nil' income for the Assessment Year 2022-23. After receiving notices for non-compliance with tax audit requirements under Section 44AB, the return was deemed invalid under Section 139(9).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not have gross receipts exceeding the threshold for tax audit under Section 44AB, as the exceptional items reported did not qualify as turnover. The order declaring the return invalid was quashed.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was required to obtain a tax audit report under Section 44AB and if the return could be declared invalid under Section 139(9) due to non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that exceptional items resulting from a resolution plan do not constitute gross receipts for the purpose of tax audit requirements, thus invalidating the order that deemed the return defective.
Result: The order declaring the return invalid was quashed, and the return was to be processed in accordance with law.
ORDER :
BHARGAV D. KARIA
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhinal Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Dev D. Patel for learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Patel waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.
3. Having regard to the controversy in the narrow compass arising in this petition and with the consent of the respective learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner a public limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2022-23 declaring total income of ‘Nil’. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 31st December 2022.
4.1. It is the case of the petitioner that initially, the petitioner carried on business from Calcutta and subsequently, the petitioner was admitted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Resolution Plan under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Such plan was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Calcutta vide order dated 16th December 2021, by which the Meghmani Organics Limited was declared as successful resolution applicant and accordingly, the registered office of the petitioner was shifted to Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
4.2. It is also the case of the petitioner that along with return, the petitioner also filed audited financial statement.
4.3. The petitioner received a notice under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) on 31st December 2022 from the respondent No.1 – Deputy Director of Income Tax, C.P.C. Bengaluru, Centralized Processing Centre raising the defect namely non-submission of tax audit report under Section 44AB of the Act with the return of income on the ground that total sales, turnover or gross receipt of the petitioner exceeded to more Rs.10 Crore.
4.4. In response to such notice, the petitioner files reply on 6th January 2023 stating that there was no total gross receipt, turnover or total sales exceeding Rs. 10 Crore. The petitioner thereafter received another notice on 23rd January 2023 pointing out the same defect in the return.
4.5. The petitioner thereafter received order dated 15th December 2023 stating that the response filed by the petitioner, return of income has been deemed to be invalid in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(9) of the Act.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition with the following prayers:
“B. Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and aside the Defective Order dated 15/12/2023 marked as Annexure – C declaring the return of income tax filed on 31.12.2022 (revised return) as invalid by the petitioner along with all the consequential and incidental proceedings;
C. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions to call for the record of proceedings, look into them and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned Defective Order dated 15.12.2023 and the incidental proceedings thereby validating the revised return submitted on 31.12.2022 as the valid return under Section 139 of the Act.”
6. Learned advocate Mr. Dhinal Shah for the petitioner submitted that on perusal of the impugned order dated 15th December 2023 passed under Section 139(9) of the Act, the return of income filed by the petitioner is declared invalid for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act.
6.1. It was submitted that such an order is without giving any opportunity of hearing and it is without jurisdiction and therefore, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6.2. Learned advocate Mr. Shah invited the attention of this Court to the audited profit and loss account for the year ended on 31st March 2022 appearing at page no.256 of the paper bo
AI
Exceptional items from a resolution plan do not count as gross receipts under Section 44AB, thus invalidating the order declaring the return defective.
Excess provisions written back do not constitute 'gross receipts' under Section 44AB, thus not necessitating a Tax Audit Report.
Compliance with statutory requirements under Income Tax Act is essential even if a party claims misunderstanding; genuine hardship must be assessed to condone filing delays.
The absence of reasons in administrative orders violates natural justice, necessitating adherence to fair play and the exhaustion of alternate remedies before judicial intervention.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that remuneration received as a working partner from a partnership firm cannot be considered as gross receipts in profession under Section 44AB of ....
The denial of tax exemption based on non-filing of required reports can be a curable defect, emphasizing tax on income rather than on total receipts.
Debatable issues on charitable trust exemption under section 11 cannot be disallowed via prima facie adjustment in section 143(1) processing without assessee's explanation; matter remitted for verifi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.