Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (6) TMI 645

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... than the application is to be allowed by condoning the delay. The merits of the application is not the subject of consideration at this stage. We find that the impugned order has come to a conclusion that not granting of the application to entertain the revised return of income,would lead to a genuine hardship to the Petitioner. This alone is sufficient for the purpose of allowing application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, as this is the only requirement. There is no requirement of any specific instructions being issued by the CBDT to the Income Tax Department to entertain the revised return of income in case of exemployee of SBI filed after expiry of period of limitation. In the above view, the delay on the part of the Petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (VRS) under Exit Option Scheme of the SBI. (b) On 31st July, 2008, the Petitioner filed her return of income, claiming that to the extent of ₹ 5,00,000/received by her on a retirement from the SBI under the Exit Option Scheme, is exempted under Section 10(10C) of the Act. (c) On 24th March, 2010, the return of income was processed under Section 143 (I)of the Act. By intimation, her claim for exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act, was disallowed. (d) Thereafter, Petitioner learnt that the benefit of Section 10(10C) of the Act was being extended by the Revenue to various exemployees of SBI who had opted for VRS under the Exit Option Scheme just as the Petitioner had done. (e) In the above view, on 30th March, 2013, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in the impugned order was satisfied that the Petitioner would face genuine hardship if the revised application is not entertained. However, same has been rejected on the ground that the CBDT has not issued specific instructions, directing the Department to extend the period of limitation in case of where revised return of income as filed beyond a period of limitation in case of exemployees of SBI. We note that Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is very clear. Under the above provision, the Authority concerned has to apply his mind to the application before him and if he finds that not granting of the application would result in genuine hardship, than the application is to be allowed by condoning the de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates