By Hardayal Singh, Income Tax Ombudsman, Mumbai
fiogf49gjkf0d
Ombudsman Orders
Ombudsman
Orders
Government of India
Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
3rd floor, Aayakar Bhavan,
Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020.
No. CCIT/MUM/Grie./2007-08 Date 29-8-2007
To
The Chief Commissioners of Income Tax —
I to VII, XI to XII, (C)-I & II,
Mumbai.
Sub. : Redressal of grievances — Reg.
Please find enclosed letter dated 28th August 2007 wherein
the Ombudsman, Income-tax Department had issued certain instructions in order to
reduce the grievances in these areas. Kindly ensure such instructions are
adhered to and take suitable remedial action. Progress made in this regard may
please be noted to the Ombudsman, Income-tax Department with a copy endorsed to
Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai.
(Mala Ramakrishnan)
Chief Commissioner of Income-tax,
Mumbai.
D.O.F. No. Dir.(Hqrs.)/Ch.(DT)2007/
N. B. Singh
Member
Tel. : 23093621
Date : 18-9-2007
Smt. Mala Ramakrishnan,
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA),
Mumbai.
Dear Ramakrishnanji,
Income-tax Ombudsman, Mumbai has brought to my notice certain
irritants faced by the taxpayers. These are of recurring nature. A copy of the
relevant portion of the letter of Income-tax Ombudsman is enclosed for your
perusal.
I would request you to take action on the matters pointed out
by Ombudsman, Mumbai so that the number of grievances can be considerably
reduced.
With regards, Yours sincerely,
(N. B. Singh)
20th August, 2007
Ms. Mala Ramakrishnan,
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
3rd floor, Aaykar Bhavan,
M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020.
Dear
During my meetings with the tax-paying public at various
forums, the following systemic deficiencies have been brought to my notice. I am
informed that these continue to be irritants for the taxpaying public. It is
suggested that immediate action should be taken to redress the same.
(a) Refunds :
Many instances have come to light where there has been an
inordinate delay between the date of issue of the intimation and the date of
issue of refund. In one instance, the date of intimation is dated 31-7-2006, the
refund however is dated 27-7-2007.
(b) Interest u/s.244A :
(i) Interest is invariably not allowed on the delay between
the date of the assessment order/intimation and the date of issue of refund.
(ii) Sometimes the refunds are delayed on account of prior
administrative sanction sought by the Assessing Officer from the Jt. CIT/Add.
CIT/CIT/Chief CITs. No interest is allowed on such delays.
(c) Scrutiny assessments :
(i) In many cases, a standard questionnaire is sent
whenever a case is picked up for scrutiny. The details sought are either not
applicable or are available on the records of the case itself. Wherever
required, the officers should be urged to draw a specific questionnaire after
perusing the records of the relevant year and earlier assessment years.
(ii) Sufficient time is not given to taxpayers where they
have to seek information from a third party. It has been suggested that the
period of up to two weeks should normally be granted to comply with such
requirements.
(iii) In verification of cash credits, copies of returns of
income of lenders are sometimes called for. This appears to be a recent trend.
Taxpayers have complained that it impossible for them to get copies of returns
of lenders. Requirements of the law should ordinarily be treated as having
been adequately met once a taxpayer provides details of the lender’s PAN, AO,
etc.
(d) Rectification and appeal effects :
It has been brought to my notice and it is my own experience
as well that rectification applications and appeal effects are not being
attended to on time. Considerable delays are being reported to me on a daily
basis.
2. The above analysis may be brought to the notice of all the
assessing officers and their supervisory authorities – namely, Jt. CIT/Adl. CITs/administrative
CITs/Chief Commissioners for necessary action.
3. When supervisory officers take up cases for
review/inspection, they may specifically keep an eye for the defects indicated
above. If they notice lapses, they should specifically comment upon the same.
4. You will appreciate that the instructions issued by you as
well as your colleagues may help in reducing grievances in these areas. I shall
therefore be grateful if a copy of the same is endorsed to me.
Yours
(Hardayal Singh)
Income Tax Ombudsman,
Mumbai.
Copy to :
The Chairman,
C.B.D.T., North Block,
New Delhi-110001.
Government of India
Office of the Ombudsman
Income Tax Department
11th floor, Mittal Tower, ‘B’ Wing,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-21.
Tel. : 22829930
Ref. No. : Ombudsman/352/2007-08
Name & Address of the assessee : Mrs. Xxxx
PA No. :
A.Y. : 1994-95
Date of hearing : 04-02-2008
Date of order : 7th February, 2008
Award under clause 13 of the Income Tax Ombudsman Guidelines, 2006
The complainant’s grievance dated 5-12-2007relates to her failure to obtain credit for advance-tax of Rs.40,000 for the A.Y. 1994-95. In her letter to the Ombudsman, she has pointed out that the cheque in question of Indian Overseas Bank, Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai was cleared on 30-3-1994. Her accountant however did not show this payment while filing her return for the relevant assessment year. It is only in April, 2001 that she discovered that al-though she had made the payment of Rs.40,OOO,she had not claimed the same in her return of income and hence had failed to receive the credit for the same. In her complaint, the assessee has produced all the necessary proof for this payment including a certificate from India Overseas Bank. A copy of the challan for the payment made has also been enclosed.
2. On obtaining the report from the ITO dated 2-1-2008, received in this office on 23-1-2008, this case was fixed for hearing on 4-2-2008. 5hri ….. , Addl. CIT.Rg.20(1) and 5hri ….. , ITO. 20(1)(1), Mumbai were present on behalf of the Department. Mrs……….. the assessee herself was also present for the hearing.
3. The fact of this case falls within a very narrow compass and have .been narrated above. From the Department’s point of view, it has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer in his report dated 2-1-2008 that the assessee’s application for rectification dated 4-7-2002 was initially rejected by the Department on the ground that the claim had been made beyond four years from the passing of the assessment order dated 29-1-1997. The assessee applied for condonation of delay to CIT-20, who rejected her claim vide his letter dated 11-3-2004. The assessee then petitioned the CCIT- XI, Mumbai. Her application did not find favour with him also and her request was rejected on 3-6-2004. The assessee then petitioned the Board on 18-6-2004 which again ruled that there was no mistake apparent from the record. The assessee reapplied to the Board on 13-2-2006 under the Right to Information Act. In reply, the Board asked her to file a revised return and move an application for the condonation of delay in filing her return, u/s.119 of the Act.
4. The assessee complied with this direction. No action was however taken between 7-3-2006 and 11-4-2007 i.e., for more than a year. After waiting for so much time, the C.LT. quoted Board’s instruction No.13/2006, issued in December, 2006, and pointed out to the assessee that no fresh application for claim . of refund was to be entertained six years beyond the end of the assessment year for which the application was made. Under this instruction, according to the CIT, the limitation set in on 31-3-2001.
5. The assessee is aggrieved against the aforesaid direction. According to her, she has complied with Board’s directions and her revised return deserves to be considered as it was filed much before the instruction No. 13/2006 dated 2-12-2006 was issued.
6. I have applied my mind to the facts of this case. First of all, it is not equitable that one year should have been allowed to lapse before giving effect to the Board’s directions for reconsidering the assessee’s revised return. Understandably, filing of a revised return, on the directions of the Board, was never meant to be an idle formality.
The Board’s subsequent instructions cannot be construed to deprive the assessee of her vested right to have her revised return considered for the purpose of obtaining the credit for the advance-tax payment of Rs.40,000.
7. Secondly and much more importantly, I find that the instruction itself clearly says that no fresh application for claim of refund will be entertained beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. This instruction can only apply to new cases, where a claim is filed after the issue of this instruction. In the assessee’s case, her claim precedes the Board’s instruction by more than four years. The assessee’s claim for payment of advance tax under her revised return was in pursuance of the directions of the Board and has therefore necessarily to be considered. The assessee’s claim for giving credit/ refund should therefore be re-examined in accordance with law.
8. The assessee will indicate within 15 days of the receipt of this order as to whether she accepts this award in full and final settlement of her claim. On her acceptance, the Assessing Officer will thereafter re-examine the assessee’s case in accordance with the Board’s instructions on the subject and if any refund results, the same will be issued to the asses-see within one month of the date of receipt of this award. The Assessing Officer’s report clearly indicates that the regular assessment in this case was completed on 29-1-1997 u/s.143(3). Issues other than the credit for Rs.40,000 towards advance-tax thus appear to have been fully examined.
9. There will be no order as to compensation. The assessee will not also be entitled to claim interest on any delayed refund, that might result from this award.
(Hardayal Singh)
Income Tax Ombudsman,
Mumbai.
