Income tax return can be revised within a year only
April, 11th 2016
The e-filing system is not accepting my return as it is late by more than a year. The Tax Department is also not accepting my return. What should I do to rectify it?
On going through your income calculations, it is observed that you have not included interest on savings account (Rs 15,675) in your total income though you have claimed the deduction of Rs 10,000 under Section 80TTA. The total income therefore should work out at Rs 4,26,715 for the assessment year 2014-15. It is surprising that your online revised return was not accepted because in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(5), you could have filed a revised return by March 31 March i.e within one year of the end of the assessment year. The tax payable on the total income of Rs 4,26,715 for the assessment year works out at Rs 18,202. You have already paid a tax of Rs 20,267, therefore you should not worry about the non-filing of a revised return. Even if your return gets reassessed under Section 147, there should not be any penalty as there is no tax payable on the basis of the total income computed as above. You may, however, have to forego the refund of Rs 2,000, which you should have been entitled in case the revised return had been accepted.
My wife has been retired as Superintendent (Grade-I) from the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, on December 31, 2014, and Rs 20,280 has been deducted as tax from her dues with respect to payment of leave encashment exceeding at Rs 3 lakh. The deduction made by the office is unlawful and arbitrary as the payment of leave encashment is dully exempted under Section 10(10AA) in the case of Central and state government employees. The HRTC is formed under the RTC Act, 1950, and is 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Hence, its employees must be treated on a par with state government employees for all purposes. The payment of leave encashment, spread over income years to service period rendered by the retiree, is fully exempted from tax in the case of a retired employee on superannuation. The HRTC is neither a company nor a limited establishment. It is a fully owned instrumentality of the state government. Hence, its employees should have been treated on a par with other state government employees in the case of leave encashment payment and its deduction. Moreover, no tax was deducted from employees retired prior to December 31, 20014. Clarify the issue with appropriate rule of the land of law. —Jag Jiwan
An employee of the corporation which is formed under a separate enactment does not automatically become an employee of the state government. The corporation may be a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution, but that does not make your wife as an employee of the Himachal Pradesh Government. In my view, the corporation has correctly deducted tax at source in respect of amount paid to your wife in excess of Rs 3 lakh.
I have joint fixed deposits with my wife. She expired on January 16, 2015, which was informed to our bank. She has submitted the Form 15H to the bank on April 2, 2014. I requested the bank to transfer the FDs in my name, but to no avail. The bank also refused my request to show FDs' interest income (from January 16, 2015) in my total income. It transferred the amount (on maturity) in my savings bank account in September 2015, October 2015, January 2016 and deducted TDS from April 1, 2015, to date (for the FY2015-16). But no tax was deducted from January 16, 2015, to March 31, 2015. Who is liable for such non-deduction of tax at source?—Sohan Lal Arora
The non-deduction of tax at source by the bank from January 16, 2015, to March 31, 2015, will have no liability on you. However, you will have to mention income of the period in your total income for the financial year 2014-15 and pay tax thereon. The liability for non-deduction of tax at source is on the bank and therefore, it would be answerable for tax authorities for such non-deduction.