TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, by which order, the Application filed by the Petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act for condonation of delay in filing the return and to allow to carry forward loss for Assessment Year 2001-2002, came to be rejected. 3 The Petitioner is a Multi State Cooperative Bank and as such registered under the Multi State Cooperative Society Act. The Petitioner filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2001-2002 declaring the loss of ₹ 15,94,19,523/. The said return was filed after the statutory audit was completed on 15-11-2001 and the audit under Section 44AB was completed on 28-11-2001. In so far as, the aspect of condonation of delay in filing the return is concerned, the CBDT at the relevant time had issued ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds were sufficient grounds for not filing the return in time and for condonation of delay in filing the same. The said application inter alia also contained the submission of return of loss. 4 The said application filed under Section 119(2)(b) was considered by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance and by the impugned order dated 18-3-2010, the said application came to be rejected. The Government of India did not find the reasons mentioned by the Petitioner worthy of acceptance for condonation of delay. The Government of India was of the view that, only general reasons have been mentioned for seeking condonation of delay and no exceptional circumstances which were beyond the control of the applicant to file the return, were me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CBDT had issued the circular No.8 of 2001. It is in the context of the said statutory provision as well as the circular that the reasons mentioned by the Petitioner in the application for condonation of delay have to be considered. As indicated above, the principal reason cited by the Petitioner is that the statutory auditors were appointed by the Central Registrar on 3-9-2001 and that the said statutory auditors completed the audit on 15-11-2001 and the tax auditors completed the audit on 28-11-2001 and, therefore, there was a delay in filing the return. It would have to be noted that, the Petitioner is a Multi State Co-operative Bank operating under the Multi State Cooperative Society Act 1984. The power to appoint the statutory auditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Act. However, CIT (A)I in the Appeal filed by the Petitioner has set aside the penalty holding that there was reasonable delay in filing the return late by one month. Therefore, the CIT (Appeal) accepted the very same facts as were mentioned by the Petitioner in the Application under Section 119(a)(b) of the said Act. 8 It is well settled that in matters of condonation of delay a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities. 9 In that view of the matter the above Petition is required to allowed. The impugned order dated 18-3-2010 is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and resultantly the delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
