Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (11) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ingle judge has rejected the writ petition. In the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner (assessee) has sought for quashing the order No. F. 212/5/90-ITA. 11, dated July 17, 1990, passed by the first respondent the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("the Board" for short), produced as annexure-M in the writ petition. He has also sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the assessee and duly assess the return filed for the year 1985-86. Learned single judge has held that, having regard to the decision of this court in John Shalex Paints (P.) Ltd. v. C B. D. T. [1993] 201 ITR 523, (Writ Petitions Nos. 13525 and 13526 of 1986, decided on November 7, 1990), the order dated July 17, 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing the information indicated in annexure-I annexed to the said letter. According to the respondents, this letter was also sent to the assessee ; whereas, according to the assessee, no such letter was received by him. We need not go into this question because the letter addressed to the assessee did not call upon him to furnish the information contained in annexure-I to that letter. The said letter addressed to the petitioner only stated thus : "I am directed to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated December 29, 1989, on the above subject and to say that the matter is receiving attention." The rest of the paragraphs in the letter were not addressed to the assessee. It is also not in dispute that, pursuant to the letter dated Januar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r avoiding, genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorise any income-tax authority, not being a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or 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." Section 119 of the Act empowers the Board to issue instructions to the subordinate authorities. Sub-section (1) of section 119 provides that the Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper admin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an application or a claim or return filed after the expiry of the period specified for avoiding genuine hardship caused in any case or class of cases. Thus, the statute makes it incumbent upon the Board to consider the case pleaded under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Act by an assessee who files his return beyond time. This power has to be exercised by the Board and the Board alone and not by any other authority. It is not possible to hold that this power is administrative when it relates to condonation of delay in a case where the return is filed beyond the period prescribed. The Board is required to exercise its discretion by taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances and determine whether the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... easons had been assigned. In our opinion, when an Application under section 119 of the Act is considered by the Board, the Board is not required to write an order recording reasons. What the Board, however, should do is to apply its mind to the merits of the case. In the present case, particularly having regard to the fact that an oral hearing had been given and written arguments were also permitted to be filed, we are satisfied that the Board had applied its mind to the merits of the case and had rejected the application of the petitioner on merits. " Therefore, the aforesaid decision also has proceeded on the basis that it is necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing to the applicant-assessee. Shri Raghavendra Rao, learned senior .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates