TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... donation of delay ought to be rejected as it was filed beyond the period specified in the Circular of the Board - It cannot be disputed and it is clear from a reading of the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) that the delay to be condoned is the delay in making 'the application' for refund. 'The application for refund', in this case is the return which was not processed as it was filed beyond the time specified in Section 139 - Therefore, the delay to be condoned was not to be considered with reference to the date on which the application u/s 119(2)(b) was filed, but with reference to the date on which the 'application for refund' (here in this case the return of income) was filed. Section 119(2)(b) does not impose a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing aggrieved by the fact that an application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for condonation of delay in filing returns and claiming refund for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax through Ext.P6 order dated 12.4.2021. The petitioner seeks a mandamus commanding the respondents to process the return of income filed by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 and grant to the petitioner the refund of Rs.1,33,470/- claimed by him. 2. The brief facts of the case show that the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Act, did not file his return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of delay on 20.1.2021. That application of the petitioner has been rejected by Ext.P6 proceedings of the 1st respondent. Ext.P6 reads as under:- Shri. Antony Kaithackal Chacko , the applicant filed a petition before the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-I on 20-01-2021 requesting for condonation of delay in filing return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The report on the condonation petition was submitted by Jurisdictional assessing officer the ITO, Ward-I, Kottayam which was forwarded by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I Kottayam, along with his remarks. 3. The application for condonation and report submitted by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer have been perused and found that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en if the application was filed beyond the period of six years as specified in the Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and referred to in Ext.P6 order, it is open to this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to condone the delay, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Mr. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department refers to the statement filed in this Court on behalf of the respondents and states that Ext.P6 order is completely justified. It is submitted that Ext.P6 order does not suffer from any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner claimed a refund for the Assessment Year 2010-11 by filing belated return of income beyond the period specified in Section 139 of the Act, on 13.7.2012. Ext.P6 proceeds on the basis that the application for condonation of delay ought to be rejected as 'the application' was filed beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year and, therefore, in terms of the Circular of the Board bearing No.9/2015, the application cannot be considered. 6. I am of the view that the 1st respondent completely misdirected himself in law while holding that Ext.P5 application of the petitioner for condonation of delay ought to be rejected as it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication will stand restored to the file of the 1st respondent who will consider the matter afresh, and decide whether the delay from 31.3.2012 (the last date on which return could have been filed for Assessment Year 2010-11) till 13.7.2012 (date of filing of return by the petitioner) can be condoned in exercise of the power conferred under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Needless to say that, if the delay is condoned, the return filed by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 13.7.2012 shall be processed in accordance with law. In the facts of the present case and considering that after filing his return for the Assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
