Court Denies Extension for Tax Filing Deadline Amid COVID-19 Challenges

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name:

All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants Vs. Union of India (High Court of Gujarat)

R/Special Civil Application No. 13653 of 2020 With R/SCA No 660 of 2021

Date: 13th January 2021

Key Takeaways:

• The court emphasized that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, not granted as a matter of course.
• The decision highlighted the importance of maintaining tax filing deadlines to ensure government revenue.
• The court noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had already extended deadlines multiple times and had valid reasons for not extending them further.

Issue

Should the court issue a writ of mandamus to extend the deadline for filing tax audit reports and income tax returns?

Facts

• The All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants sought an extension for filing tax audit reports and income tax returns, citing delays in the release of necessary utilities and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
• The CBDT had previously extended deadlines multiple times due to the pandemic, but ultimately decided not to extend them further.
• The court had to consider whether the CBDT’s decision was reasonable and justified.

Arguments

• Petitioners’ Arguments: The Federation argued that the delays in releasing filing utilities significantly hindered tax practitioners’ ability to meet deadlines. They claimed that the pandemic created genuine hardships that warranted an extension.
• Respondents’ Arguments: The CBDT contended that the filing compliance was increasing and that extending the deadline could disrupt the filing discipline. They argued that the government needed timely tax revenue to support relief efforts during the pandemic.

Key Legal Precedents

• The court referenced the principles surrounding the issuance of a writ of mandamus, stating that it is not a right but a discretionary remedy. It must be shown that:
• The applicant has a legal right.
• The opposite party has a legal duty.
• There is no alternative remedy available.
• The court cited previous cases, including State of Bihar vs. Ramjee Prasad and Union of India & Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal, to illustrate the standards for issuing a writ of mandamus and the necessity of a clear legal duty on the part of the authority.

Judgement

The court denied the request for an extension of the filing deadline. It concluded that the CBDT had acted within its discretion and had valid reasons for its decision. The court emphasized that while the pandemic posed challenges, the need for timely tax filings was crucial for government revenue and public interest. The court also noted that the CBDT had already provided multiple extensions and that further interference could disrupt the functioning of the government.

FAQs

Q1: What does this ruling mean for tax practitioners?

A1: Tax practitioners must adhere to the existing deadlines for filing tax audit reports and income tax returns, as the court has ruled against any further extensions.

Q2: Why did the court deny the extension?

A2: The court found that the CBDT had valid reasons for not extending the deadline, including the need for timely tax revenue and the importance of maintaining filing discipline.

Q3: Can the CBDT extend deadlines in the future?

A3: Yes, the CBDT has the discretion to extend deadlines in the future if circumstances warrant it, but this decision will depend on the specific situation at that time.

Q4: What is a writ of mandamus?

A4: A writ of mandamus is a court order compelling a government authority to perform a duty that it is legally obligated to complete. However, it is not granted as a matter of right and requires specific conditions to be met.

1. The operative part of the order passed by this Court dated 8th January 2021 in the Special Civil Application No.13653 of 2020 reads as under:

“21 We are of the view that the respondent No.1 – Union of India, Ministry of Finance should immediately look into the issue, more particularly, the representation dated 12th October 2020 at Annexure : I of the paper book (page 108) and take an appropriate decision at the earliest in accordance with law. We, accordingly, direct the respondent No.1 to do so. While taking an appropriate decision, the Union shall bear in mind the observations made by this High Court in the two above noted judgements, more particularly, the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Vaghjibhai S. Bishnoi (supra) that the powers given to the CBDT are beneficial in nature to be exercised for proper administration of fiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the taxpayers. The purpose is of just, proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and the public interest. One additional aspect needs to be kept in mind before taking any appropriate decision that the time period for the officials of the tax department has been extended up to 31st March 2021 having regard to the current covid­19 pandemic situation. If that be so, then some extension deserves to be considered in accordance with law. Let an appropriate decision be taken by 12th January 2021. 22 Post this matter on 13th January 2021 on top of the Board. 23 Mr. Patel, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 shall apprise this Court of any decision or development in the matter on the next date of hearing.”

2. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court referred to above,

the CBDT looked into the representation dated 12th October 2014

preferred by the All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants and is said to

have also taken into consideration the other observations made by this

Court in the order dated 8th January 2021.

3. The order under Section 119 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) dated

11th January 2021 declining to extend the time limit any further reads

thus:

“F.NO. 370153/39/2020­TPL

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

(TAX POLICY AND LEGISLATION DIVISION)

New Delhi, 11th January, 2021

ORDER UNDER SECTION 119 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide judgement dated 8th January, 2021

in the case of The All India Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants Vs.

Union of India, SCA 13653 of 2020, has directed the Ministry of Finance

to look into the issue of extension of due dates for filing of Audit Report

under section 44AB (of Income Tax Act, 1961) more particularly the

representation dated 12.10.2020 and take an appropriate decision in

accordance with law.

2. In the wake of the global pandemic due to COVID­19 the due dates

for filing of income tax returns for A.Y. 2020­21 was extended vide the

Taxation and Other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain

Provisions) Act, 2020 (which was enacted on 29th September,2020) to

30th November, 2020. Subsequently, vide notification s.o. 3906(E) dated

29th October, 2020 the due dates for filing of returns were further

extended to 31st January, 2021 for cases in which tax audit report under

section 44AB (of Income Tax Act, 1961) ("the Act") is required to be filed and

31 st December, 2020 for all other cases. Further vide notification S.O.

4805 (E) dated 31st December, 2020 the above due dates were further

extended to 15th February, 2021 and 10th January, 2021 respectively.

3. As per the provisions of the Act the due date for filing of the audit report under section 44AB (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is one month prior to the due date of filing of income tax return. Therefore, the said due date was extended to 31st October,2020 vide the Taxation and Other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of

Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, 31st December, 2020 vide notification s.o.

3906(E) dated 29th October, 2020 and further to 15th January, 2020

vide notification s.o. 4805 (E) dated 31st December, 2020.

4. The due dates for payment of self ­assessment tax, for taxpayers whose

amount due does not exceed rupees one lakh, also coincide with the due

dates for filing of income tax returns. The table below summarises the

various due date extensions given:­

S. No. Action Original Due date

1st Extension vide TOLA, 2020

2nd Extension vide Notification S.O.3906 (E) dated 29.10.2020

3rd Extension vide Notification S.O. 4805 (E) dated 31.12.2020

1. Return for Non-Audit Cases 31.07.2020 30.11.2020 31.12.2020 10.01.2021

2. Tax Audit 30.09.2020 31.10.2020 31.12.2020 15.01.2021

3. Return for Tax Audit Cases 31.10.2020 30.11.2020 31.01.2021 15.02.2021

5. Thus, it is apparent that the Government has not only considered

representations of various stakeholders but also has been proactive in

providing relaxation to the taxpayers by extending due dates regularly.

The table below gives the statistical data comparing the return filing

statistics of A.Y. 2019­-20 and A.Y. 2020­-21

Date –this year

AY 20-21 ITRs filed Daily figures Date – last year

AY 19-20 ITRS filed DAILY Figures 05-Jan-21

5,08,48,022 7,26,177 26-Aug-19 4,14,13,558 13,65,348

06-Jan-21

5,16,71,398 8,23,376 27-Aug-19 4,30,99,600 16,86,042

07-Jan-21

5,27,14,751 10,43,353 28-Aug-19 4,51,44,749 20,45,149

08-Jan-21

5,41,54,435 14,39,684 29-Aug-19 4,77,39,460 25,94,711

09-Jan-21

5,64,10,561 22,56,126 30-Aug-19 5,12,55,607 35,16,147

10-Jan-21

5,95,15,322 31,04,761 31-Aug-19 5,61,79,905 49,24,298

From the above table, it is apparent that the number of returns filed this

year has already exceeded the number of returns filed last year up to 31 st

August which was the last day of filing of the all the returns other than the company/tax audit returns, by about 6%.

The table below gives the statistical data comparing the filing statistics of tax audit report for A.Y. 2019-­20 and A.Y. 2020-­21.

Date Form 3CA Form 3CB Date Form 3CA Form 3CB

20-Oct-19

2,741 29,760 04-Jan-21 3,079 27,492

21-Oct-19

5,598 51,069 05-Jan-21 3,238 28,875

22-Oct-19

7,626 62,938 06-Jan-21 3,190 30,582

23-Oct-19

9,125 75,031 07-Jan-21 3,323 31,035

24-Oct-19

10,977 87,350 08-Jan-21 3,316 29,924

25-Oct-19

11,841 93,575 09-Jan-21 2,824 26,924

26-Oct-19

10,366 91,397 10-Jan-21 1,416 16,370

27-Oct-19

2,309 30,861 11-Jan-21

28-Oct-19

6,138 59,785 12-Jan-21

29-Oct-19

10,119 1,00,569 13-Jan-21

30-Oct-19

23,125 1,87,444 14-Jan-21

31-Oct-19

42,280 3,15,190 15-Jan-21

Grand Total cumulative 2,88,236 25,37,444 Grant Total cumulative

2,14,804 18,49,461

6. The above table also show that majority of the audit reports under

section 44AB (of Income Tax Act, 1961) as well as income tax returns are filed within the

last few days of the dates only. For A.Y. 2019­20 it is seen that 24% of

total audit reports were filed in last 3 days before the due date.

Therefore,lesser filing compliances having been made much before the due date cannot be said to be an anomalous situation.

7. A look at the relaxation of similar nature provided by other economies

globally makes it clear that the Government of India has been very

empathetic to the needs of the taxpayers as compared various other

countries. It is apparent from the table no other country has extended the

due dates as much as India. Even countries which are comparatively worse

hit by COVID­19, like the USA, UK etc., have provided n o or lesser

extensions in due dates. The table below lists such extensions given by a

few countries:

Country Financial period

Individual Corporate Due date Extended due date

Due date Extended due date

USA 2019 15th April 2020

15th October 2020

15th April 2020

15th October 2020

UK 2019-2020 31 January 2021

No extension 31st December 2020

No extension

Australia 2018-2019 5th May 2020

5th June 2020 15th May 2020

5th June 2020

South Africa 2019 16th November 2020

No extension 31st December 2020

No extension

Netherlands 2019 1st May 2020

No extension 1st June 2020

No extension

Ireland 2019 12th November 2020

10th December 2020

12th November 2020

10th December 2020

Singapore 2019 18th April 2020

31st May 2020

15th December 2020

15th January 2020

Canada 2019 30th April 2020

30th September 2020

May August 2020

30th September 2020

Brazil 2019 1st March 2020

30th April 2020

30th April 2020

30th June 2020

8. From the above it may be seen that Government has been proactive

in analyzing the situation and providing relief to assessee. However, it

should also be appreciated that filing of tax returns/audit reports are

essential part of the obligations of assessee and cannot be delayed

indefinitely. Many functions of the Income ­tax Department start only after

the filing of the returns by the assessee. Filing of tax returns by assessee

also results in collections of taxes either through payment of self-

assessment tax by the assessee or by the subsequent collection by the

department post processing or assessment of the tax returns. The tax

collections assume increased significance in these difficult times and

Government of India needs revenue to carry out relief work for poor and

other responsibilities. Any delay in filing returns affects collection of taxes and other welfare functions of the state for the vulnerable and weaker

sections of society which is funded through the revenue collected. Sufficient time has already been given to taxpayers to file their tax returns and a large number of taxpayers have already filed their returns of income.

9. From the above discussion, it is apparent that,­

• The due dates for filing of return/tax audit have already been

extended on 3 occasions.

• Internationally, the extension provided by India is more

generous as compared to other countries.

• The return filing statistics of the current year indicates that

returns filed in this financial year already far exceeds the returns

filed which were due on the last date of filing of returns.

Any further extension would adversely affect the return filing discipline

and shall also cause injustice to those who have taken pains to file the

return before the due date. It would also postpone the collection of revenue

thereby hampering the efforts of the Government to provide relief to the

poor during these COVID times.

11. In fact several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have gone to

the extent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as

arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter

affidavit filed by the Government, (unless it is shown to be totally

capricious or whimsical). [State of Bihar vs. Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC

368, Union of Indian & Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar JaiswaI1994(4) SCC 212

(vide para 5), Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Backward Class Bank

Employees Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 76 (vide para 31),

University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996(10)

SCC 536, etc .] When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and

there is no mathematical or logical way of fIxing it precisely, the decision

of the legislature or its delegated must be accepted unless it can be said

that it is very wide off the reasonable mark. (See Union of India & Anr. v.

Mis Parameshwaran match works Ltd., 1975 (2) SCR 573, at p. 579; and

Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma etc. etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1985 (3)

SCR 243, at p. 269)

2. In view of the above reasons, all the representations for further

extension of the due date are hereby rejected.”

4 Thus, it appears that the CBDT has taken the final decision not to

extend the due date any further and accordingly, rejected all the

representations.

5 The decision taken by the CBDT vide order dated 11th January

2021 referred to above is sought to be produced by way of further

affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively. The

same is ordered to be taken on record.

6 We proceeded with the further hearing of this litigation today at

sharp 11:00 A.M.

● SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE WRIT APPLICANTS:

7 Mr. S. N. Soparkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

writ applicants vehemently submitted that the decision of the CBDT

placed on record is nothing, but an eyewash. It is argued that the core

issue arising in this litigation has not been addressed by the CBDT.

8. It is argued that the CBDT has very conveniently and consciously

not addressed itself to the hard reality that the utilities for filing the Tax Audit Report and the Income Returns were released at a belated stage.

In fact, those were released almost after a period of more than five

months despite there being a mandate from this Court in the previous

litigation referred to in the order dated 8th January 2021 that the utilities should be released not later than 1st April of the financial year. The CBDT has failed to appreciate that by inordinate delay in releasing the

utilities, the time available with the tax practitioners could be said to

have been considerably curtailed. The tax practitioners are finding it

very difficult to prepare the Returns of Income and Tax Audit Reports

before the due date.

9. It is argued that the issues raised in the present writ applications

are identical to the one decided in 2014(50) taxmann.com 115(Guj)

paras 37 to 39 and 2015 (61) taxmann.com 431 (Guj) (para 6). It is

argued that in the present case also, the Income Tax Return utilities

were issued at a belated stage. Substantive amendments were

introduced in the form of Tax Audit Reports in the middle of the order

i.e. 1st October 2020 and even thereafter, the utility was not issued till

22nd October 2020 creating a complete state of disarray.

10. It is argued that even if the two subsequent extensions are taken

into consideration, then the total time available is only 85 days instead

of 183 days.

11. There is no fault on the part of the writ applicants and the case is

one of genuine hardship on account of the delay on the part of the

CBDT.

12. Way back in the year 2014, this Court had directed the CBDT not

to introduce new utility with additional requirements in the midst of the

year. The directions issued by this Court in the two judgements referred

to above have been completely defied.

13. It is argued that this High Court extended the due date in the

decision reported in 2015 (61) taxmann.com 431, even while the other

High Courts declined to do so.

14. It is argued that by extending the time period, as prayed for, no

hardship is going to be caused to the Revenue, whereas, if the time

period is not extended, the writ applicants will be put to immense

difficulties.

15. Mr. Soparkar, once again, invited our attention to the following

chart:

ITR/TAR Form Due date of filing (original) Clear days expected

from 01.04.2020 Date of availability of e-filing utility

Schema up dation date

Utility updation date

Extended due date

Effective days available with taxpayers and the tax

professional ls from utility availability

ITR 3 31.10.2020 214 days 31.07.2020 29.08.2020

09.11.2020

11.01.2021

11.01.2021 15.02.2021 199 days

ITR 5 31.10.2020 214 days 25.08.2020 30.09.2020

13.11.2020

11.01.2021

11.01.2021 15.02.2021 174 days

ITR 6 31.10.2020 214 days 10.10.2020 22.11.2020

& 11.01.2021

11.01.2021 15.02.2021 128 days

ITR 7 31.10.2020 214 days 03.09.2020 15.10.2020

08.12.2020

11.01.2021

11.01.2021 15.02.2021 165 days

TAR 3CA 3CB 3CD

30.09.2020 183 days 22.10.2020

(Rules amended on 01.10.2020)

15.01.2021 85 days

ITR 3: for individuals having income from business/ profession head

ITR 5: For Firm /LLP/AOP/BOI

ITR 6: For company

ITR 7: for charitable organisation/political party/university (claiming

exemption)

16. It is argued that on account of the covid pandemic situation, there

has been frequent disruption as regards the availability of the staff,

employees, working hours, client meetings and audit work. The hardship

faced by the taxpayers and tax professionals in finishing the audit

assignments and collecting the requisite details to file the Returns of

Income and Tax Audit Reports is genuine and real. Adequate time period

is needed to finish the work. It is pointed out that not less than 18

organizations (including the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India)

have made representations for this purpose.

17. It is argued that through the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation

and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, the due dates for

completion of any proceedings or passing of any order or issuance of any

notice, intimation, notification, sanction or approval or such other

action, by whatever name called, by any authority, Commission or

Tribunal, by whatever name called under the provisions of the specified

Act is extended upto 31st March 2021. If the adequate time period

determined for such purposes is extended upto 31st March 2021 than the

same should also be granted to the writ applicants. It is argued that the

CBDT has recognized the need to extend the time period and has already

extended the same for three times for A.Y. 2021­21. Therefore, the need

to extend the time period from the original due dates is genuine and not

superfluous. Only the adequacy of extension is in question. It is argued

that that the pandemic has not come to an end.

18. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Soparkar prays that

there being merit in his writ application, the same may be considered

appropriately and the time period, as prayed for, may be extended in the

interest of not only the tax payers but also the tax professionals.

19. Mr. Avinash Poddar, the learned counsel appearing with Mr.

Vishal J. Dave and Mr. Nipun Singhvi, the learned counsel for the writ

applicants of the connected writ application submitted that they would

adopt all the submissions canvassed by Mr. S. N. Soparkar referred to

above and noted above.

● SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:

20. On the other hand, both the writ applications have been

vehemently opposed by Mr. Zoheb Hossain assisted by Mr. Varun K.

Patel and Mr. Nikunt K. Raval, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

21. Mr. Hossain would submit that the principal argument canvassed

on behalf of the writ applicants as regards the delay in releasing the

utilities for filing the Tax Audit Reports and Income Tax Returns has

been blown out of proportion. It is argued that the changes brought

about in the ITR by way of an update do not amount to adding or

extending the fields. It is only increasing or making changes in the

character of the existing fields to enable certain minuscule taxpayers to

report correctly which they might not have been able to otherwise.

22. It is argued that the Tax Audit work undertaken by the writ

applicants is in no manner affected by such amendment minuscule

changes or updates which are provided in the existing fields. No

prejudice could be said to have been caused warranting any interference

at the end of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the Tax Audit Report Utility

has been made available from 1st April of the relevant year. Reliance

placed on the two decisions of this High Court referred to above are

completely misplaced because in the said case by a Notification dated 1st

May 2013, the CBDT had made it mandatory for the assessees to

electronically file the Income Tax Returns relevant for the assessment

year 2013­14 and onwards. In relation to the assessment year 2014­15,

the respondents therein had failed to make the utility specified for filing

the Tax Audit Report until 31st August 2014. Various representations

were made to the CBDT in that regard which in exercise of power under

Section 119 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) extended the due date for filing the Tax Audit

Report under Section 44AB (of Income Tax Act, 1961) to 30th September 2014.

However, the due date for filing of Returns of Income was not extended.

It is in such factual background prevailing at the relevant point of time

that this Court thought fit to issue the writ of mandamus directing the

CBDT to extend the due date for filing the Income Tax Returns. It is

argued that after deliberations at the highest level in the Ministry of

Finance, it was decided that the time limit for filing of the Audit Reports,

which is presently fixed as 15th January 2021 should not be extended

any further for the following reasons:

(1) The Compliance in filing the Tax Audit Reports is rapidly increasing

each day as is evident from the following table:

Date FORM 3CA AY 20-21

FORM 3CB AY20-21

Cumulative figure – AY 20-21

Date FORM3CA

AY 19-21 FORM3CB AY 19-20

Cumulative figure AY 19-20

Difference

04-Jan-21

3,079 27,492 18,84,075 20-Oct-19 2,791 29,760 15,30,967 3,53,108

05-Jan-21

3,238 28,875 19,16,188 21-Oct-19 5,598 51,069 15,87,634 3,28,554

06-Jan-21

3,190 30,582 19,49,960 22-Oct-19 7,628 62.938 16,58,198 2,91,762

07-Jan-21

3,323 31,035 19,84,318 23-Oct-19 9,125 75,031 17,42,354 2,41,964

8-Jan-21

3,316 29,924 20,17,558 24-Oct-19 10,977 87,350 18,40,681 1,76,877

09-Jan-21

2,824 26,097 20,46,479 25-Oct-19 11,841 93,575 19,46,097 1,00,382

10-Jan-21

1,416 16,370 20,64,265 26-Oct-19 10,366 91,397 20,47,860 16,405

11- 4,320 41,970 21,10,555 27-Oct-19 2,309 30,861 20,81,030 29,525

Jan-21,12-Jan-21

8,690 85,663 22,04,908 28-Oct-19 6,138 59,785 21,46,953 57,955

13-Jan-21

29-Oct-19 10,119 1,00,569 22,57,641

14-Jan-21

30-Oct-19 23,125 1,87,444 24,68,210

15-Jan-21

31-Oct-19 42,280 31,15,190 28,25,680

Grand Total cumulative

2,27,814 19,77,094 22,04,908 Grand

Total cumulative

2,88,236 25,37,444 28,25,680 -6,20,772

(2) From the above data, it is evident that there has been a huge leap in

filing of the tax audit reports and from 10.01.2021 the daily filings have

increased 4 to 5 times as on 12.01.2021. On 10.01.2021, the daily filing

of Form 3CB was 16,370 which jumped to 41,970 on 11.01.2021 which

has again more than doubled to 85,663 on 12.01.2021. The assessees are

rapidly complying with the filing of the tax audit report across the country

and any interference at this stage may affect the discipline of filings by the Assessees as well as the larger interest of the Revenue and public interest.

(3) Notably, from the above table it is also evident that as against last

year with 3 days remaining from the deadline, the cumulative figure of the

TAR filings for AY 2019­20 was 21,46,953 as against the cumulative

figure of the TAR filings this year with three days remaining from the last

date is 22,04,908 which is 57,955 already in excess of the last year’s TAR

filings. Therefore, there is disciplined compliance taking place by the

assessees.

(4) The TAR utility was available from the beginning of the year, and

therefore, there is no justification in seeking an extension for filing the tax audit report.

(5) Moreover, the submission that certain ITR Forms were released in June

2020, July 2020, August 2020 and September 2020 respectively and

therefore filing of the ITRs should be extended is misplaced since the

preparation of the Final Accounts, which is done on the basis of the

Income Tax Act and the Rules therein is nowhere dependent on the date of

release of the ITR utility and is an independent exercise. It is nobody’s case that the assessee was ready to file his returns prior to June 2020, July 2020, August 2020 or September 2020 ­ the various dates when the

different ITR Forms became available ­ but could not file the same and

thereafter they were prevented from filing till the last date of filing such

return on 15.02.2021. There is nothing in the Act or Rules which

mandates that the portal should be open and available from 1st April of

the relevant year itself provided that a reasonable time is given to the

assessees to file their return of income. In fact the ITR forms which were

made available contained only minimal changes to reflect the amendments

made in the Finance Act 2020 which were already known to all assessees

and Tax practitioners.

(6) The Filing of returns in the tax audit cases demonstrate that even as

on 12.01.2021 which is 34 days before the extended due date, the returns

filed in the tax audit cases far exceed the returns filed in comparison to

last year on a similar date. A chart to this effect is as under:

Asst year AY 2020-21 a on 12th Jan 2021

AY 2019-20 as on 28th Sep 2019

Difference

ITR – 3 83,98,573 79,18,513 4,80,060

ITR -5 10,68,479 7,68,756 2,99,723

ITR - 6 4,82,981 2,38,168 2,44,813

This is comparison for AY 2019­20 (due date 31st Oct 2019 for all

ITRs with TAR) and AY 20­21 (due date 15th Feb 2021 for all ITRs

with TAR): 34 days prior to extended due date for equivalent

comparison

(7) Indisputably, the assessees would have at least 148 days to upload

their returns from 22/09/2020 the date when the ITR­6 was made

available till 15.02.2021 which is the date when the return for the Audit

Cases is to be filed. The writ applicants have not been able to establish any prejudice caused to the Assessee or indicate any rational nexus between

their inability to prepare their Final Accounts and Tax Audit Reports and

the availability of the utility for various forms from June 2020/September

2020 on wards.

(8) The Supreme Court has consistently held that in financial matters

judicial deference may be shown to the executive pragmatism and free play

in the joints may be given to the executive especially in fixing cut­off dates.

(9) It has also been demonstrated that the various updates the Petitioner

has referred to made to various forms did not amount to changing or

increasing any existing fields, rather only the size of such fields were

increased in the number of characters or in some cases the field was

modified to accommodate from numeric characters to alpha numeric

characters keeping in mind certain special cases. A list of such Schema

changes and justification was presented before this Court.

(10) The consequence of late filing of a tax audit report is provided under

Section 271B (of Income Tax Act, 1961) which reads as under:

“Failure to get accounts audited.

271B. If any person fails to get his accounts audited in respect of

any previous year or years relevant to an assessment year or

furnish a report of such audit as required under section 44AB (of Income Tax Act, 1961), the

Assessing Officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of

penalty, a sum equal to one­half per cent of the total sales,

turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business, or of the

gross receipts in profession, in such previous year or years or a sum

of one hundred fifty thousand rupees, whichever is less.”

(11) However, Section 273B (of Income Tax Act, 1961) containing the consequence of non­filing of

tax audit report provides that if in a given case the assessee proves

reasonable cause for failure to file tax audit report in accordance with

Section 44AB (of Income Tax Act, 1961), no penalty will be imposable on the person or the assessee.

The relevant portion of Section 273B (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is reproduced hereunder:

“Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases.

273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of

clause (b) of sub­section (1) of...section 271B (of Income Tax Act, 1961), ..., no penalty shall

be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for

any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there

was reasonable cause for the said failure.”

(12) Therefore in exceptional cases, if an assessee is able to make out a

case of reasonable cause for his failure to file tax audit report within the

relevant time as required under Section 44AB (of Income Tax Act, 1961), then the case of such person

or assessee will be considered in accordance with law under Section 273B (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

23 In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel have

relied upon the following case law:

(1) Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Subbarayudue

and others (2008) 14 SCC (paras 5 to 8)

(2) Ramrao and others vs. All India Backward Class Bak

Employees Welfare Association (2004) 2 SCC 76 (para 31 to

33)

(3) Union of India and another vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal

(1994) 4 SCC 212 (paras 5 to 7)

(4) University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary

(1996) 10 SCC 536 (para 21)

(5) RK Garg vs. Union of India (1981) 4 SCC 675 (para 8)

(6) Union of India vs. Nitdip Textile Processors Pvt Ltd

(2013) 1 SCC 226 (para 66)

(7) Supreme Court's order dated 20th March 2020 In Union

of India vs. PD Sunny and others in SLP(C) No.10669 of 2020

24. It is also brought to our notice that the High Court of Kerala and

the High Court of Allahabad had passed orders issuing general directions

to the various departments like the banks, financial institutions, income

tax authorities, authorities dealing with the erstwhile KVAT, GST,

recovery of tax on motor vehicles and building tax to defer the recovery

proceedings or coercive measures till a particular point of time. The

Revenue challenged the two orders before the Supreme Court by filing

the Special Leave to Petition (Civil) No.10669 of 2020. The Supreme

Court passed the following order dated 20th March 2020, which reads

thus:

“The Registry is directed to accept these special leave petitions against the judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Kerala,

Ernakulam Bench in Writ Petition (Civil)No.8231/2020 and of the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Allahabad Bench in Writ Petition (Civil)

No.7014/2020.

Permission to file special leave petitions is granted.

Issue notice.

In the meantime, there shall be ex­parte ad­interim stay of the impugned

judgment and order(s) passed in the aforesaid writ petitions and of further

proceedings before the High Court(s), in view of the stand taken by the

Government of India through learned Solicitor General, before us, that the

Government is fully conscious of the prevailing situation and would itself

evolve a proper mechanism to assuage concerns and hardships of every

one.”

25. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents pray that there being no merit in these

two writ applications, those be rejected.

● SUBMISSIONS IN REJOINDER:

26. Mr. Soparkar, in rejoinder, submitted that the Revenue has raised

the following five contentions:

“(1) Comparing number of income tax returns filed on 31.08.2019 (5.51

crores) and 10.01.2021(5.95 crores) – an argument is advanced that a

greater number of returns are already filed by the time 10.01.2021 and

therefore no further extension is required.

(2) Comparing number of Tax audit reports filed on 31.10.2019 (2.88

lakhs/25.37 lakhs) and 10.01.2021(2.14 lakhs/18.49 lakhs) – an

argument is advanced that a lesser number of returns filed before a due

date is not anomaly as 24% of total reports were filed in last five days.

(3) Comparing the extension granted by other countries around the world

– an argument is made that the CBDT has been generous in granting

extension that it has granted already and no further extension is required.

(4) It is also argued that return filing is an obligation of the assessee

which cannot be delayed indefinitely. Many functions of the tax

department begin after filing of the returns. Filing of the returns results in tax payment that the government needs. Further extension will adversely

affect return filing discipline and shall cause injustice to those who have

filed before due date.

(5) Reliance is placed on Supreme Court decisions to submit that due date

is not arbitrarily decided and the same may not be disturbed.”

27 Mr. Soparkar would submit that the CBDT still owes an answer to

the following:

(a) the delay in releasing the utilities by 4­6 months despite

repeated orders of various High Courts.

(b) amendments in the Rules and Tax Audit Return form in the

middle of the year

(c) No hardship is likely to be caused to the revenue if the due

date is extended

(d) Why the writ applicants should not be treated at par with the

revenue officers for whom the due date is extended to 31.03.2021

28. Mr. Soparkar submitted that the comparison of the ITR filed on

31st August 2019 and 10th January 2015 is fundamentally flawed. The

reason being that by 31st August 2019, only the non­ Tax Audit Returns

would have been filed, whereas by 10th January 2015, both the Tax

Audit as well as the non­Tax Audit Returns would have been filed.

29. It is pointed out from the table produced by the Revenue itself

that the daily Tax Audit Reports filed in 2021 are less than half

compared to what was filed in 2019. In such circumstances, it is

unrealistic to expect that 25% shortfall can be met in last five days the

way it did in 2019.

30. It is pointed out that the United States has given extension of six

months, whereas the CBDT has given extension of 3.5 months. It is

further submitted that for all other countries (except U.K.), the financial

period is the calendar year 2019 i.e. when there was no pandemic. The

Audit and Return filing preparation would have begun and materially

completed before the pandemic in such cases. Such is not the scenario

with India and therefore, such comparison is not valid. It is pointed out

that the population of India and the number of returns are substantially

large compared to other countries.

31. In the last, it is argued that the case law relied upon on behalf of

the Revenue is completely misplaced and not applicable in any manner

as in each of those cases relied upon, the challenge was to the fixing of

date. The writ applicants do not seek to challenge Section 139(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) or

Section 44AB (of Income Tax Act, 1961). The writ applicants only seek judicious

exercise of powers under Section 119 (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

32. In such circumstances, it is prayed that this Court may consider

the prayer sympathetically keeping in mind the practical difficulties

faced by one and all in this hard times of the covid pandemic.

● ANALYSIS:

33. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and

having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls

for our consideration is whether this Court should issue a writ of

mandamus to the CBDT for the purpose of extending the time limit to

file the Tax Audit Reports and the Income Tax Returns.

34. There is no denying to the fact that the year 2020 was a

challenging one. The challenge still continues in the new year 2021

which has just dawned. There has been loss of life and there has been

loss of livelihood. There has been anxiety, anguish and even, a degree of

anger which stems from helplessness or our inability to be in control of

the situation. The Union and the State Government has been striving

hard since a long period of time to combat the situation. It is not as if the Government is completely oblivious of the difficulties which have been

pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ

applicants so far as the present litigation is concerned. However, the

moot question for this Court to consider is as to where to draw the line.

In other words, to what extent the High Court in exercise of its writ

jurisdiction should interfere with the decision taken by the respondents,

more particularly, when it comes to Revenue.

35. Before an applicant could get a writ of mandamus or an order in

the nature of mandamus, he has to satisfy the court that the following

conditions are fulfilled.

(a) The applicant has a legal right;

(b) The opposite party has a legal duty;

(c) The application is made in good faith;

(d) The applicant has no other alternative remedy; and

(e) The opposite party has refused relief, i.e. demand and refusal.

36. Mandamus is one of the prerogative writs issued by the superior

courts (High Court or Supreme Court), which is in the shape of

command to the State, its instrumentality or its functionaries to compel

them to perform their constitutional / statutory/public duty. 23. A writ

of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to be invoked only upon

special occasion and in exceptional circumstances. It is intended to

supply deficiency in law. It cannot be granted merely for the asking but

has to be obtained where there is no alternative, efficacious and

adequate remedy. It cannot be used as an appeal against the decision of

a court, tribunal or an authority exercising statutory power. It can only

be issued as a last resort where the court is satisfied that without its aid

there would be failure of justice.

37. Mandamus is an action or judicial proceeding of a civil nature

extraordinary in the sense that it can be maintained only when there is

no other adequate remedy, prerogative in its character to the extent that

the issue is discretionary, to enforce only clear legal rights, and to

compel courts to take jurisdiction or proceed in the exercise of their

jurisdiction, or to compel corporations, public and private, and public

boards, commissions, or officers, to exercise their jurisdiction or

discretion and to perform ministerial duties, which duties result from an

office, trust, or station, and are clearly and peremptorily enjoined by law

as absolute and official (P.R. Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon, (2005), Vol.

III P. 2873.).

38. Mandamus is not a writ of right and is not granted as a matter of

course (ex debito justitiae). Its grant or refusal is at the discretion of the court. A court may refuse mandamus unless it is shown that there is a

clear legal right of the applicant or statutory duty of the respondent and

there is no alternative remedy available to the applicant. (Union of

India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150)

39. The discretion of the court, however, is not arbitrary and it must

be exercised fairly, reasonably and on sound and well established legal

principles.

40. The court, in the exercise of discretion, must take into account

wide variety of circumstances. It must consider the facts of the case, the

exigency which calls for the exercise of discretion, the consequences of

granting or refusing the writ, the nature and extent of injury likely to

ensue by the grant or refusal of the writ, etc. In short, courts discretion

must be governed by considerations of public policy, public interest and

public good.

41. In the decision reported in (2008) 2 SCC 280, Oriental Bank of

Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, in paragraphs 11 and 12, the Supreme

Court held thus,

“11. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been

stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris

and F.G. Ferris, Jr.:

Note 187.­Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ,

usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is

addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying

for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed.

Note 192.­Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial

discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and

others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other

adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a

failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the

performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep

subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions

within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be

imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a

common law duty.

Note 196.­Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably

lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where

the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as

true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is

classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable

principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the

larger public interest which may be concerned­an interest which private

litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court

should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the

consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent

upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances.

Note 206.­ ... The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the

duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has

exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is,

upon facts sufficient to support his action.

12. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar

Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh after

referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M.

Shah, Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Nalanda College and Umakant

Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar this Court observed as follows in para 15 of

the Reports (SCC): (Sipahi Singh case, SCC pp. 152­53)

“15. ... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a

writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory

duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part

of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must

be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the

aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its

performance.... In the instant case, it has not been shown by Respondent 1

that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty

on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to

be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already

indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly

of the opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a

writ of mandamus under Article 226 the Constitution and the High Court

was not competent to issue the same.

Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be

a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance

of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities...."

42. Mandamus is the most valuable and essential remedy in the

Administrative Justice resorted to supply want of some appropriate

ordinary remedy. The functions of the writ court is to compel the

performance of public duty, for which, the person approaching the writ

court should statutorily, has a clear, specific and unequivocal,

constitutional or statutory or legal right to the relief sought for and the

failure on the part of those who are bound to perform certain duties and

functions, as laid down by the legislature or directions issued for the

purpose of enforcing the provisions of an enactment or of any delegated

or subordinate legislation. There must be a legal right and corresponding

legal duty.

43. In State of Kerala v. A.Lakshmi Kutty, reported in 1986 (4) SCC

632, the Supreme Court held that a Writ of Mandamus is not a writ of

course or a writ of right but is, as a rule, discretionary. There must be a

judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which a mandamus

will lie. The legal right to enforce the performance of a duty must be in

the applicant himself. In general, therefore, the Court will only enforce

the performance of statutory duties by public bodies on application of a

person who can show that he has himself a legal right to insist on such

performance. The existence of a right is the foundation of the

jurisdiction of a Court to issue a writ of Mandamus. The present trend of

judicial opinion appears to be that in the case of non­ selection to a post,

no writ of mandamus lies.

44. When a Writ of Mandamus can be issued, has been summarised in

Corpus Juris Secundum, as follows:

"Mandamus may issue to compel the person or official in whom a

discretionary duty is lodged to proceed to exercise such discretion, but

unless there is peremptory statutory direction that the duty shall be

performed mandamus will not lie to control or review the exercise of the

discretion of any board, tribunal or officer, when the act complained of is

either judicial or quasi­judicial unless it clearly appears that there has

been an abuse of discretion on the part of such Court, board, tribunal or

officer, and in accordance with this rule mandamus may not be invoked to

compel the matter of discretion to be exercised in any particular way. This

principle applies with full force and effect, however, clearly it may be made to appear what the decision ought to be, or even though its conclusion be disputable or, however, erroneous the conclusion reached may be, and

although there may be no other method of review or correction provided

by law. The discretion must be exercised according to the established rule

where the action complained has been arbitrary or capricious, or based on

personal, selfish or fraudulent motives, or on false information, or on total lack of authority to act, or where it amounts to an evasion of positive duty, or there has been a refusal to consider pertinent evidence, hear the parties where so required, or to entertain any proper question concerning the exercise of the discretion, or where the exercise of the discretion is in a manner entirely futile and known by the officer to be so and there are other methods which it adopted, would be effective." (emphasis supplied)”

45. A prerogative writ, like, a Mandamus cannot be demanded ex

debito justiatiae, but it can be issued by the court in its discretion, for

which, it must be shown that, there is a non discretionary legal duty

upon the authority against whom, the relief is sought for and that the

person approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, has to prove that he has a legal right to be enforced against the

authority, for the failure of performance of a legal or statutory duty, by

the authority against whom, the relief is sought for.

46. To sum up, (a) certain conditions have to be satisfied before a writ

of mandamus is issued; (b) the petitioner for a writ of mandamus must

show that he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or abstain

from doing something; (c ) there must be in the petitioner a right to

compel the performance of some duty cast on the respondents; (d) the

duty sought to be enforced must have three qualities. It must be a duty

of public nature created by the provisions of the Constitution or of a

statute or some rule of common law; (e) the remedy of a writ of

mandamus is not intended to supersede completely the modes of

obtaining relief by an action in a Civil Court or to deny defence

legitimately open in such actions; (f) the power to issue a writ of

mandamus is a discretionary power. It is sound use of discretion to leave

the party to seek his remedy by the ordinary mode of action in a Civil

Court and to refuse to issue a writ of mandamus; (g) a writ of

mandamus is not a writ of course or a writ of right but is, as a rule a

matter for the discretion of the Court; (h) in petitions for a writ of

mandamus, the High Courts do not act as a Court of appeal and examine

the facts for themselves. It is not the function of the Court to substitute

its wisdom and discretion for that of the person to whom the judgment

in the matter in question was entrusted by law. The High Court does not

issue a writ of mandamus except at the instance of a party whose

fundamental rights are directly and substantially invaded or are in

imminent danger of being so invaded; (i) a writ of mandamus is not

issued to settle private disputes or to enforce private rights. A writ of

mandamus cannot be issued against the President of India or the

Governor of State; (j) A writ will not be issued unless the Court is certain

that its command will be carried out. The Court must not issue a futile

writ.

47. It is true that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the year 2015

had the occasion to deal with almost a similar issue as the one involved

in the present case. This High Court had directed the CBDT to extend the

due date for filing the Income Tax Returns under Section 139 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) from 30th

September 2015 to 31st October 2015 so as to alleviate to a certain

extent, the hardships caused to the assesses on account of delay in

providing the utilities. However, this Court had to interfere in a situation

when for the first time by way of a Notification the CBDT made it

mandatory for the assessees to electronically file the Income Tax Returns

relevant for the assessment year 2013-­14 and on wards.

48. Although Mr. Soparkar, the learned Senior Counsel has criticized

the manner in which the decision is taken by the CBDT not to extend the

time limit any further, yet we believe that such decision must have been

taken after due deliberations, and in taking such decision, many

financial experts must have applied their minds. It is true that the Board

is vested with the power under Section 119 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) to extend the due

date and the powers are discretionary in nature and that is the reason

why we thought fit to ask the CBDT to look into the matter and take an

appropriate decision in accordance with law. If the CBDT has looked into

the matter closely and has arrived at the conclusion that the extension of

time limit would not be in the interest of the Revenue, then it cannot be

said that the CBDT has failed to exercise its discretionary powers vested

in it under Section 119 (of Income Tax Act, 1961). When there is a power coupled with

duty, there is an obligation on the Board to exercise the same if the facts

so warrant. Upon due consideration of all the relevant aspects of the

matter, if the Board has taken the final decision not to extend the time

limit any further, then it is difficult for this Court to issue a writ of

mandamus to the Board to extend the time limit on the assumption that

undue hardship would be caused to the taxpayers and the tax

professionals, more particularly, in view of the latest data put forward

before us by the Revenue.

49. It is the case of the CBDT that it has declined to exercise its power

under Section 119 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) as the conditions for exercise of such power

do not exist. It is the case of the Revenue that the issue of hardship was

dealt with considerably at the relevant point of time and that is the

reason why three times the time limit came to be extended. The Board

has now thought fit in the interest of the Revenue not to extend the time

period any further. There are so many vital issues which the Revenue

needs to keep in mind before taking such decision. The question is

whether this Court should go into all such issues which weighed with the

CBDT in taking a particular decision one way or the other and substitute

the same with that of this Court on the ground that if the time limit is

not extended, then the people at large would be put immense hardships?

Interference at the end of this Court, at this point of time, in the matters

relating to the Revenue may have far reaching implications. This Court

may find it very easy to issue a writ of mandamus, as prayed for, saying

that if the time limit has been extended in the past on three occasions,

then why not for one last time up to 31st March 2021. However, such a

line of reasoning or approach may upset the entire functioning of the

Government and may lead to undesirable results.

50. In the overall view of the matter, we have reached to the

conclusion that we should not interfere in the matter.

51. In the result, both the writ applications fail and are hereby

rejected. At this stage, we may only observe that the CBDT may consider

issuing an appropriate circular taking a lenient view as regards the

consequences of late filing of the Tax Audit Reports as provided under

Section 271B (of Income Tax Act, 1961). We leave it to the better discretion of the CBDT

in this regard.

(J. B. PARDIWALA, J)

(ILESH J. VORA,J)