TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds such as illness of someone etc., which could reasonably have been substantiated by independent material. The petitioner, in our opinion, was able to show bonafide reasons why the refund claim could not be made in time. The statute or period of limitation prescribed in provisions of law meant to attach finality, and in that sense are statutes of repose; however, wherever the legislature intends relief against hardship in cases where such statutes lead to hardships, the concerned authorities – including Revenue Authorities have to construe them in a reasonable manner. That was the effect and purport of this court’s decision in Indglonal Investment & Finance Ltd. (2011 (6) TMI 229 - DELHI HIGH COURT). This court is of the opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of consequent refund, the assessee paid the amounts due in terms of its calculation and assessment was framed under Section 143(1). The period for revising the demands ended on 31.03.2015 (Assessment year 2013-2014), however the error that had crept in while furnishing the returns was not rectified through an application or a refund undertaken. The petitioner claims that when it did discern the error or claim, it had applied on 12.09.2016 to the Chief Commissioner, for condoning the delay for filing the application for refund. The application was rejected by the Commissioner on 28.03.2018. In its application, the assessee had claimed that its Chartered Accountant had inadvertently overlooked the TDS amounts, as a consequence it could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have revised the return by 31.03.2015. However, the assessee had not filed the revised ITR to claim refund of ₹ 31,25,000/-. Considering no action by the assessee to claim substantial amount of refund of ₹ 31,25,000/- during available period of more than one and a half year from the date of filing of ITR, the assessee was asked to explain reason for such inaction when the company had incurred substantial expenditure in seeking professional help of Chartered Accountants. IN response to the query, it was as submitted by the AR for the assessee that revised return could not be filed due to lack of knowledge about claim of credit of TDS of ₹ 31,25,000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that as per audited account the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in fact reflected at the relevant time that for Assessment Year 2013-2014, additional TDS credit to the extent of ₹ 31,25,000/- was payable which in turn implied that the amounts were paid. Counsel relied on statements made in the application to say that inadvertence or omission in claiming appropriate adjustment and consequent refund was on account of its auditor/chartered accountant s lack of diligence. The petitioner relied upon a Division Bench ruling of this court in Indglonal Investment Finance Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, [2012 343 ITR 44(Delhi)]. 5. The learned counsel for the revenue relied upon the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner s claim for condonation of delay was justifiably rejected. Counsel s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. (See Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal vs. Central India Industries Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 555 ). An assessment order or an order quantifying the income/net wealth can be rectified or modified in the proceedings as contemplated by the enactment. The assessment order or the order quantifying the income or taxable wealth cannot be challenged on merits while the authorities examine the question of refund. The authorities cannot go behind the assessment order or the order quantifying net wealth/income. Section 242 of the 1961 Act is apposite and is reproduced below:- 242. Correctness of assessment not to be questioned.--In a claim under this Chapter, it shall not be open to the assessee to question the correctness of any assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. 8. The rejection of the petitioner s application under Section 119(2)(b) is only on the ground that according to the Chief Commissioner s opinion the plea of omission by the auditor was not substantiated. This court has difficulty to understand what more plea or proof any assessee could have brought on record, to substantiate the inadvertence of its advisor. The net result of the impugned order is in effect that the petitioner s claim of inadvertent mistake is sought to be characterised as not bonafide. The court is of the opinion that an assessee has to take leave of its senses if it deliberately wishes to forego a substantial amount as the assessee is ascribed to have in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
