Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 46445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
The Salem and Namakkal DT Police Co Op T and C Society Limited – Appellant
Versus
Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore – Respondent
WP No. 3157 of 2025 | WP No. 3162 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.V.Krishnan
For the Respondents: Dr.B.Ramaswamy Senior Standing Counsel
Taxpayers must proactively verify compliance and cannot blame consultants for delays in tax return filings due to legal ignorance.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 119(2)(b) and Section 80P - Condone delay in filing return of income for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 - Petitioner claimed unawareness of changes in law to justify the delay - The Court found no justification for the delay and emphasized the petitioner's responsibility to comply with tax obligations. (Paras 2, 6, 8)
(B) Tax Compliance - The responsibility of taxpayers to seek necessary advice and comply with the law - Court noted the lack of diligence in verifying compliance despite hiring professionals. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a co-operative society, failed to file its income tax returns on time, asserting lack of awareness about amendments in the Income Tax Act and delays in audit report receipt.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the petitioner liable for the delay citing lack of diligence in tax compliance and upheld the rejection of their condone delay petition.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing was justified due to lack of awareness about tax law amendments.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reinforced that taxpayers must be proactive in complying with tax laws and cannot absolve responsibility due to reliance on consultants.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging delay in tax return filing (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding ignorance of tax obligations (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on compliance and responsibility (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned orders dated 12.11.2024, passed by the respondent under Section 119 (2)(6) of the Income Tax Act, whereby rejecting the petitioner's condone delay petition filed requesting to condone the delay of 1297 days and 1268 days in filing the return of income for the Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner is a co-operative thrift and credit society, the petitioner is eligible for entire tax deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') and therefore, the petitioner was under the belief that the petitioner was not obligated to file return of income. While so, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 25.04.2022 & 30.03.2023 for the Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner sought professional assistance and at that juncture, the petitioner came to know about its obligation to file return of income and was informed about the amendment vide Finance Act 2018 to Section 80AC of the Act that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Chapter VI A if the return of income was not filed within the due for filing return of income under Section 139 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed return of income on 20.05.2022 & 21.04.2023 for the Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively, claiming the deduction under Section 80P of the Act.
3.He would further submit that the petitioner filed application before the Central Board of Direct Taxes requesting to condone the delay in filing the return of income for the Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20, due to the reason that the petitioner's lack of awareness about the change in law, lack of departmental circulars intimating the change in income tax law and delay in receipt of audit report. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that the audit reports were made ready on 27.09.2018 &
29.08.2019 for the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively and urged this Court to take a lenient view and condone the delay.
4.Dr.B.Ramaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that in the present case, the last date for filing the income tax return was 31.10.2018 and 31.10.2019 for the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively and the audit reports were made ready on 27.09.2018 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 and on 31.10.2019 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 and therefore, the petitioner cannot take a stand that the delay in filing income tax returns was due to the delay in receipt of audit reports and lack of knowledge in the provisions of income tax law and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present petitions.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on records.
6.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, it is evident that the petitioner has failed to file the income tax returns within the specified time. Therefore, the petitioner filed a condone delay petition before the respondent requesting to condone the delay of 1297 days and 1268 days in filing the return of income for the Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively citing the reason that the petitioner was not aware of the amendment made in the provisions of income tax law and due to the reason that the delay in the receipt of the audit report. However, in the present case, the audit report was made ready on
