9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting to INR 3,24,600/-, which also reflects the tax deducted at source ["TDS"] amounting to INR 59,170/-. 4. Thereafter, vide letter dated 04 July 2017, the assessee filed an application before the Revenue for refund of the aforementioned TDS amount. While acknowledging the request of the assessee, the Revenue vide letter dated 11 July 2017 intimated that the ITR filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 could not be processed since it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation and also advised the assessee to file an application regarding condonation of delay in filing the ITR before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ["PCIT"]-Delhi under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act. 5. Acceding to the same, on 18 July 2017, the assessee filed an application under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the ITR in the office of the PCIT highlighting the reasons attributable for delay in filing the ITR. The assessee in the said application, inter alia, accorded the reasons for the delay, namely, no information regarding deduction of the TDS and non-issuance of TDS certificate by the deductor. Alongwith the said application, the assessee had also enclosed his ITR a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.Y.2013 -14 u/s 119 (2) (b) of the I.T. Act in your case. Please refer to your application dated 18-07-2017 filed with the office of Pr. CIT, Delhi-22 on the above mentioned subject. In this regard, I am directed to convey that your request for condonation of delay for filing revised return for A.Y. 2014-15 u/s 119 (2) (b) of IT Act has not been acceded to by the competent authority as yours is not a case of genuine hardship on merits as per CBDT, Circular 9/2015 dated 9-6-2015. " [Emphasis added] 13. A bare perusal of the impugned order would reflect that while rejecting the condonation of delay application in filing the ITR, the PCIT noted that the case of the assessee was not a case of genuine hardship on merits as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09 June 2015. However, against that backdrop, the impugned order nowhere reflects any discussion, analysis or rationale in arriving at the aforenoted conclusion. 14. On that score, it is pertinent to allude to Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act and the legislative mandate behind such beneficial provision. Section 119 of the Act reads as under:- "119. Instructions to subordinate authorities.-(1) The Board may, from time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with law; (c) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order for reasons to be specified therein, relax any requirement contained in any of the provisions of Chapter IV or Chapter VI-A, where the assessee has failed to comply with any requirement specified in such provision for claiming deduction thereunder, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (i) the default in complying with such requirement was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee; and (ii) the assessee has complied with such requirement before the completion of assessment in relation to the previous year in which such deduction is claimed: Provided that the Central Government shall cause every order issued under this clause to be laid before each House of Parliament." [Emphasis added] 15. As is evident from a ex-facie reading of the aforenoted Section that such a provision is beneficial in its character as it enables the CBDT to frame and issue any orders, directions and instructions that aim to facilitate the overarching administration of the Act and consequently, marches on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Pr.CIT has not afforded any opportunity of hearing to him and the order was passed in Improper manner without considering his submissions on merit. Such contention is based only on conjecture and surmise and petitioner's misconception and misinterpretation of the principle of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner filed his return of income after a delay of almost 3 years without proper justification or reason for such delay. It was very much within his knowledge, that the actual amount received by him from his client was net of taxes and even if, they did not issue any formal TDS certificate for such long period, he should have pursued the matter with them regularly so that he could discharge his statutory liability of filing the return in time. Under the circumstances, the Pr.CIT was not convinced with his submissions and was absolutely justified in turning down his request. It is clearly mentioned in the order dated 28.03.2018 that his request for condonation of delay could not be acceded to as it was not a case of 'genuine hardship on merits' as per CBDT Circular 9/2015. Thus, the petitioner's contention that his submission was not considered o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." [Emphasis added] 23. Therefore, the reasons ascribed in the counter affidavit merit no consideration as the impugned order before us does not allude to any rationale before deciding the condonation of delay application filed under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act. 24. It is quintessential to understand that the PCIT while exercising the powers under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act acts like a quasi-judicial body and is bestowed with the cardinal responsibility to pass a reasoned order. Thus, an order passed under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act which is devoid of any reasoning or rationale would be de hors the legislative mandate prescribed under the beneficial scheme of Section 119 of the Act. 25. It is strikingly clear that the impugned order is passed in a pedantic manner witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
