TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, the petitioner was not able to finalize the accounts and determine the tax liability. The search and seizure proceedings were conducted on 23 group concerns of the assessee. Within one month, it was not possible for the petitioner to file return because the petitioner in the return disclosed total income of ₹ 2,65,57,04,226/-. Petitioner claimed refund of ₹ 2,08,73,620/-. The business of the petitioner is quite huge. The seizure operations were carried out at headquarter of the petitioner company, residence of office bearers and near about 28 sister concerns. In these circumstances, looking to the magnitude of accounts, it is unreasonable to hold that the petitioner could have had completed the process within a period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to enable the petitioner company to file income tax return. The petitioner company received seized documents and materials on 03.09.2012, 27.02.2013 and 21.10.2013. Thereafter, it filed the income tax return for the assessment year 2013-14 on 31.03.2014. The due date for filing the return was 30.11.2013. 3. Because the petitioner did not file the return within time and it was filed belatedly, the claim under Section 80IA was not allowed to the petitioner due to express provision contained in Section 80AC of the Act of 1961. The petitioner pleaded that because it did not file return within time, hence, refund of an amount of ₹ 2,08,73,620/- was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to condone the delay of four months. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments : 1) Sitaldas K. Motwani vs. Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation), New Delhi [2010] 323 ITR 223 (Bombay). 2) Artist Tree (P.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Tax [2014] 369 ITR 691 (Bombay). 3) B.M. Malani v. Commissioner of Inocome Tax, [2008] 306 ITR (SC). 4) R. Seshammal v. Income Tax Officer, [1999] 237 ITR 185 (Madras). 5) All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [2015] 378 ITR 160 (Gujarat). 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue has contended that the petitioner had received the copies of the assessed documents well with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax authority, not being a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law The Statutory provision provides that the Board has power to admit the application after condoning the delay for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases. The word genuine hardship €™ has been interpreted by the different High Courts in various judgments in the context of Section 119(2)(b). A Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the matter of Sitaldas K. Motwani vs. Director General of Income Tax (Int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. The approach of the authorities should be justice-oriented so as to advance cause of justice. If refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim of refund. 10. Again the Bombay High Court in the case of Artist Tree (P.) Ltd. vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes reported in [2014] 52 taxman.com 152 (Bombay) has held as under in regard to genuine hardship: €œ11. The expression genuine hardship €™ came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in case of B.M. Malani (supra), wherein, by reference to New Collins Concise English Dictionary, the Supreme Court accepted the position that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he office of the company and its sister concerns. The authorities had seized thousands of loose papers, books of accounts of the company, hard disc and other relevant documents. The petitioner received seized material finally on 21.10.2013. The papers were thousands in numbers and entries were running on lacks. Documents, prior to the aforesaid date, were not in possession of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner was not able to finalize the accounts and determine the tax liability. The search and seizure proceedings were conducted on 23 group concerns of the assessee. Within one month, it was not possible for the petitioner to file return because the petitioner in the return disclosed total income of ₹ 2,65,57,04,226/-. Petitioner cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
