TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003-04. Since there occurred delay in filing the returns due to delay caused in getting the required TDS certificates, the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, seeking condonation of delay. According to the petitioner, he had in fact submitted the returns earlier, in the office of the 2nd respondent as evidenced from Ext.P2 and P3, along with the TDS certificates. It is the case of the petitioner that the staff in the office of the 2nd respondent has not accepted those returns since they were filed beyond time. It is stated that, the returns in question were refused only after affixing 'office seal' of the 2nd respondent, which was thereafter scored off. In Ext.P2, copy of the return, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2003-04 (Ext.P3). The 1st respondent relied on a report of the assessing officer to the effect that the return for the assessment years were not seen filed in the office. The 1st respondent observed that the power to condone delay under Section 119(2)(b) is vested with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and it is only by virtue of Circular No.13/2006 dt.22.12.2006, the power is delegated to the 1st respondent. Referring to paragraph No.4 of the said circular it was stated that the power delegated to the 1st respondent is limited only for condonation of delay upto a period of 6 years from the end of the assessment year. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, inspite of Ext.P7 order, the delay with resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fixure of the 'office seal' as well as 'receipt number'. However, it is evident that those endorsements were scored off. Even though it could not be said that the return in question was accepted at the office of the 2nd respondent, the above said endorsements will reveal that there was an attempt made by the petitioner to submit the return on an earlier occasion. According to me, the above said fact is a matter which need be considered while deciding the issue regarding condonation of delay. Of course, as observed in Ext.P5 Judgment, even computed on that basis, there is delay in filing the return. However, there was no evaluation done with respect to the above said aspects since the 1st respondent was lacking powers. It is the CBDT which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
