9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The man has retired in the year 2000 as a labourer. He is seeking refund of small sum of Rs.33,949/- which for him is very substantial. Only to correct an apparent error committed by the Tribunal, we would not drag him before High Court. Even if we had issued notice and called him before us, we would have been persuaded to replace the Tribunal's order by our order and same direction would have followed. Only to bring about some result in a correct manner, we would be wholly unjustified in asking a man of advanced age and of poor means before us. Response to a High Court notice comes at a considerable cost. In exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction, we refuse to entertain this petition. This is the beauty of the writ jurisdiction an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 3. Such application was rejected by an order dated January 22, 2008. In such order, the Commissioner recorded that the return was due on July 31, 2000. The same was filed only on June 30, 2003 i.e. nearly three years from the last date for filing the return. He rejected the petitioner s ground of ignorance of law for delay in filing the return. 4. Such order of the petitioner was challenged by the respondent before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in a Tax Appeal. Such Tax Appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated April 04, 2012. The Tribunal recorded that the appeal which was filed against the order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act was not maintainable since such order was an administrative ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering the peculiar circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income tax may consider the case afresh including the issue of condonation of delay and after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee pass the necessary orders. 6. It is this order that the Revenue has challenged before us. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed serious error in entertaining and allowing the rectification application of the respondent. He submitted that the order of the Commissioner was not appellable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, therefore, had no jurisdiction to pass any order in favour of the respondent. 7. We have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal s order on rectification app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nored on the ground that no valid return is filed. His refund of Rs.33,949/- is withheld for the last about 10 years. It is for this purpose he prayed to the Commissioner that such delay be condoned. For the present, we are not commenting on the Commissioner's approach while deciding such application. All that the Tribunal has in the impugned order done is to require the Commissioner to pass a fresh order. This the Tribunal was persuaded to do because in the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, he was influenced substantially by the fact that according to him, the return was belated by three years. The respondent pointed out to the Tribunal that such delay was of about one year and three months. The Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
