Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

T.N. Tiruselvam Versus The Income Tax Officer - I (2) , Pondicherry, The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Board of Direct Taxes

2017 (9) TMI 1160 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Belated filing of return - reasons for delay - case of genuine hardship - fit case for condone the delay under Section 119 (2)(d) - application filed for condonation of delay in filing the return for the assessment year 1996 - 97 which appears because the reason claim on account of the jurisdictional hierarchic - Held that:- the third respondent had issue notice to the petitioner to sent a return petition on or before 21.10.2003. This direction was complied with by the petitioner by submitting h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1997 - 98 to take a decision, the such decision cannot be contrary to the decision arrived at by another authority exercising analogous powers under the Income Tax Act. Further, more I find that the petitioner is an individual assessee having been granted relief for the assessment year 1997 - 98. No prejudice would be caused to the some yardstick same applicable - for the assessment year 1997 - 97 also. - Writ Petition No. 28046 of 2004 - Dated:- 6-9-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitione .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er for belated filing of return - reasonable offence and does not a case of genuine hardship and not a fit case to condone the delay under Section 119 (2)(d) of the Act. The petitioner filed his returns for the assessment year 1996 - 97 and 19979 - 98 on 31.03.2001. 3. Admittedly, the returns were belated having been file will be on two years. Therefore, to unable the returns to be accepted and processed the petitioner's filed an application for - the assessment years for condonation of dela .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

matter have to go before the third respondent. The third respondent rejected the same by an order passed during April 2003, this was put to challenge the petitioner in W.P.No.19449 of 2003 and the said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration. With a direction to dispose of the same after affording an opportunity to the petitioner while disposing of the said writ petition by order dated 04.08.2003. The filing has been recorded by the Court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt year 1996 - 1997 filed along with returns for the period 1997 - 1998 seeking condonation was dismissed by passing the impugned communication without giving opportunityto the petitioner on the ground that the reason was not valid. According the petitioner, the third respondent is not the competent authority to pass the impugned order. 4. In any event, the fact remains that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is set as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version