Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 196 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay - Revision u/s 264 - condonation of delay under section 119 - CIT, Bengaluru dismissed the petitioner’s petition on the ground that Assessment order cannot be revised as there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to condone the delay in making any investment in specified bonds as per the provisions of Section 54(EC) - Whether communication dated 13.12.2017 (Annexure ‘F’) is in terms of Section 119(2)(b) read with Circular dated 09.06.2015 or not? - HELD THAT:- Petitioner has not questioned the validity of the Circular which relates to pending application as on 09.06.2015. Petitioner had submitted application on 24.05.2011 before the CBDT and it was pending consideration as on 09.06.2015, the date on which the circular was issued. As long as petitioner has not questioned the validity of para.8 of the circular, petitioner is not entitled for relief sought in the present petition. That apart, conduct of the petitioner is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding whether petitioner is entitled for the relief in the present petition or not?” On 24.08.2005, assessment order was passed. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied in respect of portion of the order, petitioner had filed an application under Section 264 and it was rejected on 21.07.2006. Thus, petitioner had a cause of action with reference to AY 2003-04 on or before 31.03.2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated 09.06.2015. Petitioner has slept over the matter from 21.07.2006 to 24.05.2011 for which petitioner has not appraised this Court by adducing any documentary evidence so as to examine whether delay could be condoned or not. Even for condoning the delay, para.8 of the circular would be a hurdle which is not questioned by the petitioner. The cited decisions has no assistance to the petitioner having regard to the factual aspect of the present matter. Petitioner has not explained the inordinate delay and laches from 21.07.2006 to 24.05.2011.
|