TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed within the prescribed time, the petitioner is not avoiding any scrutiny. The circumstance that financial report and audit reports were signed by the Managing Director on 04.09.2006 would not be a ground to reject the condonation of delay in filing the report. It cannot be said that the petitioner has obtained any undue advantage of the delay in filing the income tax returns. Rendering substantial justice shall be paramount consideration of the Courts as well as the Authorities rather than deciding on hyper-technicalities. It is obvious that there is some lapse on the part of the petitioner, that itself would not be a factor to turn out the plea for filing of the return, when the explanation offered was acceptable and genuine hards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciated by the Department for its prompt filing of returns and the taxes due. Annexure-C is one such appreciation letter. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer by letter dated 09.07.2009, reported to the Commissioner of Income Tax that the refund claim made by the assessee is prima facie correct and genuine. The case is also of genuine hardship and merits consideration. In the circumstances, the assessee s claim for condonation of delay in filing the IT return may be allowed and the allowance of the refund may be considered favourably. Surprisingly on further report sought by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer has changed his stance expressing that the claim of the assessee for condonation of delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2)(b) of the Act before erstwhile Income Tax-III, Bengaluru on 24.02.2009 and further a letter was addressed to Chairman, CBDT, New Delhi seeking permission to file the said return of income and requesting to allow the refund claim of ₹ 30,83,829/-. The same was forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru for necessary action. In terms of the advise made by the Authorities, the petitioner filed the return of income on 09.09.2009 declaring the total income of ₹ 2,39,46,244/- and claimed refund of ₹ 30,83,829/-. The application seeking condonation of delay before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was filed on 11.06.2010. The same came to be disposed of on 11.03.2016. In the context, it is worth referring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 119(2)(b) of the Act should be construed liberal, particularly in matters of entertaining of applications seeking condonation of delay. The same view was taken in another judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of BOMBAY MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED V/S. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. It is also the case of the petitioner that it is not avoiding any scrutiny; the Authorities can verify the genuineness of the petitioner by taking up the matter for scrutiny. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was regularly filing the return of income and a genuine tax payee. It is prima- facie apparent that only for the assessment year 2006- 07, owing to the alleged crashing of the system, no income of return was filed within the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
