DIRECT TAXES PROFESSIONALS’ ASSOCIATION

3, Govt. Place West, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700 001 Ph: 2242-0638

 

6th May, 2003

 

To,

Shri S. K. Dasgupta,
Member,Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Camp Kolkata

Respected Shri Dasgupta,

At the outset we convey our heartiest congratulations on your elevation as Member of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. We assure you of our full co-operation and hope that the tax compliance will be improving in our country.

We are making a few suggestions for the consideration by the Board.

 

1.  TAX CULTURE :

There is immense need to inculcate tax culture among tax-payers of our country. Though gradual reduction of tax rates has resulted into higher tax collection, yet what is still missing is the real spirit – the spirit of declaring correct income and  right  amount of taxes. We are aware that developed countries like UK, USA and Japan are fortunate in having commendable tax culture. With the fast changing scenario in our country , we are witnessing a new outlook of our Government as well as the taxpayers towards  building up trust for each other. Still a number of steps are desirable, like

      a)  Gradual withdrawal of Exemptions and Deductions and corresponding decrease in tax rates

b)  Further measures for real simplification of law as well as procedure

c)   Elimination of provisions of MAT and other like provisions which result into complications and controversies. In this context it is suggested that instead of 100 per cent tax holiday , the deductions may be limited to say 75 per cent. As a result the purpose of MAT will be served.

d)   A well designed Campaign should be launched for taxpayers’ education and awareness

e)   What is seen is believed. Therefore, the procedural hurdles should be overcome. A satisfied taxpayer should encourage others to file their IT Returns.

f)       Taxpayers should feel a sense of pride. He should be treated with dignity by the department.

 

       2. WORK CULTURE :

       The second limb of our suggestions is urgent need for a positive work Culture. It will help in -

a)      increasing the confidence of taxpayers in department

b)      removal of apprehension prevailing in the minds of taxpayers

       The Citizens’ Charter was a commendable declaration of  commitment to Excellence in service to the taxpayers. Through  
       the said Charter, Income Tax Department committed to be fair, to be helpful and to be efficient. It  needs to be 
       implemented in letter and its spirit and that can bring considerable change in the prevailing tax scenario.

   

  3.  PROCEDURAL/ ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES :

      
a) Departmental  Appeals before the ITAT : We admire the issue of CBDT Instruction No. 1979 dated 27.3.2000 revising
          the monetary limits for filing of departmental appeals before the ITAT ,High Courts and the Supreme Court. This has
          certainly reduced the litigation. But despite such instructions, the department is filing appeals before ITAT in several cases
          by wrongly mentioning in the information sheet that the case falls under circumstances mentioned in para 3 of the said
          Instructions . In some cases, while filing the appeal before the ITAT they have stated that the constitutional validity of the
          provisions of the Act are under challenge, whereas in fact it is totally a false statement. It is  apparent that this exception
          applies only where the matter is before the High Court or the Supreme Court as they are only competent to decide the
          constitutional validity. Our humble suggestion is that in case the department feels that a matter is covered by the
          exceptions mentioned in para 3 of the said Instruction, prior approval of the CCIT or DG must be obtained before filing the
          appeal before the ITAT, so that the purpose of the said Instructions is not defeated.

    b)  Stay of Demands : It is the general trend of the AOs to summarily reject the stay petitions or ask for payment of 50% of 
         demand. While doing so they even do not follow the CDDT Circulars on the  subject. This causes unnecessary agony. Even
         when one approaches the Joint CIT, they also insist for at least 25%, without examining the case in the light of Board’s
         Circulars. While we appreciate the department’s anxiety in expediting the collections, the Board’s guidelines should be
         properly followed and it should be ensured that unnecessary hardship is not caused. The relevant circulars include –
         Circular No. 530 dated 6.3.1989, Circular No. 589 dated 16.1.1991 and Instructions including those  referred to in the case
         of Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala182 ITR 413 (Guj.) which covers cases in which the income assessed is
         substantially higher than returned income.

     c) Tax Deduction at Source : 

         We are glad that the Government  has decided to prescribe only one consolidated annual return form of TDS
        
which was suggested by our association. However, the due date for furnishing the same should be 30th June and not 30th
         
 September, as we have noted from the press reports.

   d)  Rectification petitions and Appeal effects, Issue of Refunds along with Interest u/s 244A should be expedited.

 

     4.   OTHER SUGGESTIONS :

           We are making a few more suggestions, which are general in nature but may bring far reaching effect in tax compliance
         
 and curbing tax evasion .

           a)     Mandatory filing of Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet by all taxpayers :

                   Presently only those taxpayers whose income is from business are required to furnish with their Income Tax return 
                   the Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet as provided in Explanation under section 139(9) of the Income Tax
                   Act.

In this context we suggest that with a view to bring transparency and in the interest of proper verification , all taxpayers should be required to file Income & Expenditure Account/ Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet/Statement of Affairs reflecting the details of all the assets and liabilities at the year end. Though the CBDT has issued new return Forms Saral 2 and Saral 3 ,seeking details of various expenditure ( like education, vehicles and other expenditure in excess of Rs. 50,000) by the taxpayer and details of  credit cards, bank accounts, investment in immovable property and movable property in excess of Rs. 1 lakh but despite these being lengthy, the real purpose is not served. These were opposed by taxpayers and the CBDT had made relaxation. Therefore it is better to provide for furnishing of  the Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet with the Income Tax return.

            b)  Revision of Time Limits :

We welcome the general thrust of the Government for speedy finalization of assessments, and disposal of appeals, rectification petition etc. In this context we would further suggest to review the time limit for furnishing  the belated returns u/s 139(4) and time limit for completion of assessments prescribed u/s 153. We feel that there is scope for fine tuning these time limits.

c)  Interest on demand and refunds- the difference needs to be bridged

     With effect from 1st June,2002 the interest charged by the department is 15 per cent whereas the interest allowed
     on Refunds is only 8 per cent. Then again, the interest on refund is subjected to tax in the hands of the assessee,
     which means the taxpayer gets almost 5.6 per cent post tax interest. The difference in the rate of interest charged and
     interest allowed should be packed maximum at 2 per cent. That means if the department allows 8 per cent it
     should not charge more than 10 per cent in the interest of equity and fair play.

d)  Use of  term Financial Year for all purposes :                       

     With a view to bring simplicity we would suggest to do away with the terms assessment year, previous year etc.
     and use the single term i.e. financial year for all purposes, now that with effect from assessment year 1989-90, all
     tax payers are required to mandatorily file their returns  on the basis of financial year. So the need of using the term
     assessment year or previous year  no longer remains. Such  a step will help in removing the unnecessary confusion
     among the general taxpayers.             

e)  Revision of Monetary Limits prescribed for various purposes : 

We would suggest a re-look at the monetary limits prescribed under various sections of the Income Tax Act and bring the same to realistic level keeping in view the inflation. Some of the monetary limits which deserves reconsideration, include :                

                  Section 40A(3) : Payments otherwise than account payee cheques :            
                 
With effect from assessment year 1996-97 it has been provided that in case of payment of expenditure in cash, a
                  sum of 20 per cent of such expenditure shall  not be allowed. It has been seen in case of transporters that they insist
                  for cash payment as they require money for fuel, tyre and other exigencies and it is not possible to detain the driver
                  of the truck to open a bank account and accept payment  by cheque. Moreover rule 6DD(j) has also been omitted.
                  We would suggest that a proviso should be made to  section 40A(3) to provide that sub-section(3) does not  apply  in
                  respect of payment to transport to take care of such  problems.Alternatively rule 6DD(j) should be restored.

 

                  Tax Deduction at Source :      

                  The monetary limits for deduction of TDS u/s 194A ,194C ,194-I and 194J should be revised suitably.                    

                   Monetary Limits u/s 269SS and 269T for acceptance and Refund of  loans/deposits needs to be revised upward.

              f)   Amount of Penalties U/S 271D, 271E, 271F should be reviewed and reduced to realistic levels. The penalty u/s
                  271D and 271E should be restricted to maximum marginal rate of tax instead of 100% of the amount of loan or
                  deposit taken or refunded in violation of the provisions.

                 The flat levy of penalty of Rs. 5,000 u/s 271F irrespective of the  income of the assessee or tax payable by him is
                 not rational. It causes lot of burden on small taxpayers. Therefore it should be provided that the penalty u/s 271F will
                 not exceed 15% of tax payable by such assessee.

The above suggestions may please be considered .

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

For DIRECT TAXES PROFESSIONALS’ ASSOCIATION,

[A.K. TIBREWAL ]                     
    President   

CC to :  The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes,
             North Block, New Delhi