Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 517 - HC - Income TaxCondoning the delay in filing the refund application - application filed by the petitioner u/s 119(2)(b) of the IT Act has been rejected by CIT(A) - petitioner submits that the Commissioner of Income Tax instead of considering the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay on merit has considered the whole case on merit, and rejected the claim without condoning the delay - HELD THAT:- Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 prescribes the conditions for condonation of delay in processing the claim for refund by an assessee. The powers of acceptance or rejection of the applications within the monetary limits, had been delegated to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - The aforesaid circular further provides that a belated application for supplementary claim of refund can be admitted for condonation provided other conditions as referred to above, are to be fulfilled. It is not in dispute that the circular issued by the CBDT are binding on the Income Tax authorities. Paragraph 5 of circular No. 9/2015 mentioned above specifically provides that the authority is required to show that the income/loss declared and/or refund claimed is correct and genuine and also that the case is of genuine hardship on merits. Therefore, the Income Tax authority which is empowered to condone the delay in filing the application for refund is to ensure itself that the claim of the assessee is genuine and bonafide. Therefore, find not much substance in the submission of petitioner that the commissioner was not required to enter into the merit of the claim of the petitioner and he should have confined himself to the genuine hardship of the petitioner while considering the application for condoning the delay in filing the application. Even otherwise when the circular itself provides that the claim of the assessee has to be considered and the authority is required to reach to the satisfaction as to the genuineness of the claim, then only the question of condoning the delay in filing the refund application arises. Therefore, no substance in this writ petition, which is hereby rejected.
|