Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Tewari And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2007)212CTR(ALL)377
Author: Narayan Shukla
Bench: Narayan Shukla
ORDER
1. Admit.
2. Appearance on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 has been put in by Shri Ritu Raj Awasthi, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India and appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 3 has been put in by Shri D.D. Chopra, learned senior standing counsel, who pray for and are granted four weeks' time to file the counter-affidavit. The petitioners may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter.
3. Shri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that by the impugned Rule 12 of the IT Rules, 1962, the petitioners have been deprived to file their Vakalatnama power on behalf of their clients along with the return of income-tax, although under Section 288 of the IT Act, they have right to practice before IT authorities. He further submits that unfettered power has been given by Section 139C in favour of CBDT and the rule amended by the CBDT is also in violation of the provisions of Section 139 of the IT Act. He further submits that Saral 2D Form is the easiest way of filing the returns and the new forms introduced by the opposite parties in Forms ITR-1 to ITR-8 are against the mandatory provisions of Section 139 of the IT Act and are not in the interest of the general public as the present forms are applicable for this year only.
4. Shri D.D. Chopra, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for opposite party No. 3 submits that the Government has provided the help of tax return preparer (TRP) under Section 139B of the IT Act.
5. In reply of the submissions made by Shri D.D. Chopra, the learned senior standing counsel, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the entire city at Lucknow, 33 TRPs are available, although the number of registered income-tax lawyers/advocates are more than 1,000.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. The petitioners have alleged that they are advocates registered with U.P. Bar Council and to simplify the procedure of preparation and submission of IT returns, the opposite party No. 2 introduced Saral 2D under Rule 12(l)(b)(iii) of the IT Rules, 1962 w.e.f. 9th Sept., 1998, which the petitioners are using for filing their IT returns for last several years.
8. The petitioners have alleged that the impugned Rule 12 of the IT Rules, 1962 as amended by the IT (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2007 is ultra vires to the provisions of Section 139 of the IT Act as Section 139 of the IT Act requires the assessee to file along with return certain documents. The petitioners have also alleged that, by insertion of Section 139C of the IT Act, unfettered powers have been given to the CBDT, which are contrary to the provisions of the IT Act.
9. We have been informed that only 33 IT return preparers are available in the city of Lucknow against more than 1,000 income-tax lawyers and in the entire country there are 3,700, at present.
10. As Rule 12 of the IT Rules and the present forms introduced by the Government are applicable for this year only, we, therefore, as an interim measure, provide that if the returns are filed by the petitioners and the assessees by engaging counsel on Saral 2D Form, the same shall be entertained by the IT authorities and shall not be rejected on the ground that the same are not in the prescribed Forms ITR-1 to ITR-8.