9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CBDT, vide impugned order dated 19.01.2024 while rejecting the application, relied upon a Circular no. 09/2015 dated 09.06.2015 with regard to condonation of delay. In paras 3 and 4, the CBDT observed that the petitioner for the reasons mentioned has filed the petition beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year for which condonation of delay in filing the ROI has been sought. The petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay on 28.02.2022 for Assessment Year 2014-15. As per para 3 of the Circular dated 09.06.2015, 'no condonation application for claim of refund/loss shall be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which such application/claim is made'. The CBDT noted that the petitioner had sufficient time to file its application till 31.03.2021 (in accordance with Circular No. 9/2015) but failed to file its application. Even on merits, the CBDT held that filing a ROI within the prescribed time limit is the rule and condonation of delay is an exception. The CBDT observed that the reasons furnished for condonation of delay must be compelling circumstances that prevent the filing of an application seeking co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 claiming a refund of Rs. 1,37,58,591/-. 7. On 01.10.2016, the petitioner filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 under Section 139 of the Act and claimed a refund of excess TDS of Rs. 2,69,45,400/- on the basis of the date of transactions as mentioned by the Government of UP and deduction and payment of TDS for the Assessment Year 2014-15 as reflected in the Forms 26AS. The revised return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was processed and accepted vide intimation dated 21.03.2018 under Section 143(1) without giving credit of excess TDS. The mistake of not releasing the refund was pointed out by the petitioner in an application under Section 154 of the Act filed against the intimation under Section 143 (1) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner filed several communications dated 28.04.2017, 14.07.2017 and 16.04.2018 requesting the respondent no. 2 to release the refund for the Assessment Year 2014-15. However, no cognizance was taken. 8. Petitioner, thereafter, filed an application before the respondent No. 3 on 30.05.2018 seeking condonation of delay in filing the return for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The application was well within the time as pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l opportunity to file submissions specifying the genuine hardship that prevented the filing of the ROI within the stipulated time. 12. In response to the above letter dated 29.12.2023, the petitioner filed its submissions on 02.01.2024 and submitted that the application filed on 28.02.2022 is not time-barred in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court date 10.01.2022. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 was filed beyond the time period prescribed under Section 139 of the Act due to unavoidable circumstances. The respondent no. 1 vide impugned order dated 19.01.2024 passed under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act rejected the application on the ground that the application filed under Section 119 (2) of the Act is beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year as per the CBDT Circular 9/2015, dated 09.06.2015 without deciding merits. 13. Ms Susan Linhares, learned standing counsel for the Revenue argued in support of the impugned order. She invited our attention to the detailed affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Revenue. Moreover, she lays much emphasis on the following facts and settled position of law in support of her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nish any compelling or satisfactory reasons for condonation of delay. The petitioner failed to exercise due diligence to ensure that the application seeking condonation of delay was filed within the prescribed limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 7. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide notification dated 24-06-2020, in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1) of section 3 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (2 of 2020), had duly extended the due dates and the said notification was applicable from 30-06-2020. In the said notification, there is no mention of the extension of date of filing of application u/s 119 (2) (b) of the Act. The income tax authorities are bound by the CBDT notification, circular and instruction issued from time to time. 8. In the case of Lava International Limited Vs CBDT, W.P.(C)8293/2024, the High Court of Delhi vide Judgement dated May 30, 2024, held that there was no justification to interfere with the ultimate view which has been taken and which stands succinctly encapsulated in para 9 of the impugned order and where the authority has spoken of the imperatives ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions, i.e. on 28.04.2017, 14.07.2017 and 16.04.2018, the petitioner requested respondent no. 2 to release the refund for the Assessment Year 2014-15. As no cognizance was taken, the petitioner filed an application before respondent No. 3 - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax on 30.05.2018 seeking condonation of delay in filing returns for the Assessment Year 2014-15. This application was well within time as prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 09/2015. However, since the claim of refund was more than 10 lakhs, respondent No. 3 did not have jurisdiction over the said case. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was under bona fide belief that his application would be taken for consideration and the delay in filing the return would be condoned by respondent No. 3. The petitioner on 30.09.2020 filed a grievance petition through CPGRAM requesting the AO to release the refund for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16. On 28.02.2022, which was beyond the period of six years, the petitioner filed an application before respondent no. 1 under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the return for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and grant o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file submissions specifying the genuine hardship that prevented the filing of the ROI within the stipulated time. On 02.01.2024, the petitioner filed its submissions in response to the letter dated 29.12.2023 explaining the circumstances which resulted in the delay in filing the application. By the impugned order dated 19.01.2024, respondent rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make out a compelling reason for the delay in filing the application under Section 119 (2) (b). 21. The question is whether the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay in filing the application deserves to be accepted for deciding the claim for refund on merits. A reference is necessary to some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court in this context. This Court in Sitaldas K. Motwani V/s. Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation), New Delhi (2010) 187 Taxman 44 (Bombay) observed in paras 15 and 16 thus: "15. The phrase "genuine hardship" used in Section 119 (2) (b) should have been construed liberally even when the petitioner has complied with all the conditions mentioned in Circular dated 12th October, 1993. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es V/s. Vasudev Adigas Fast Food (P.) Ltd. (2021) 128 Taxman.com 287 (Karnataka), the High Court of Karnataka in paras 15, 18 and 19 observed thus: "15. In the considered opinion of this court, in cases where an respondent/assessee faces an hardship, Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act empowers the CBDT to issue any general or special order authorizing any income tax authority to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under the Act, if the time period for taking the benefit of the same has expired under the Act. Thereafter, the said income tax authority has to examine the return so filed on merits in accordance with law. 18. In respect of Circular No. 9/2015 dated 9-6-2015 it can be safely gathered that it does not apply to the power of CBDT to condone the delay in filing the return of income under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act. Section 119(1) of the Act empowers the CBDT to issue orders, instructions and directions to other income tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of the Act and the power available to the CBDT under section 119 (2) (b) is a specific power provided to the CBDT to pass such orders in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent tranches. The petitioner had filed a claim for refund with respondent No. 3 within the stipulated period. However, respondent No. 3 did not have jurisdiction to process the claim as the same was for more than Rs. 10,00,000/-. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2015-16 in respect of the very same contract was processed and refund was granted. In the meantime, there was outbreak of COVID pandemic. We are satisfied that a case making out compelling circumstances for filing the return belatedly is made out in the application filed by the petitioner. 25. In the present facts, the petitioner has made out a case for condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 119 (2) (b) before the CBDT. There are adequate circumstances on record justifying the delay in filing application and hence, looking at the compelling reasons for the delay in filing the application the claim of the applicant ought to have been considered by the respondents on merits. 26. The petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 19.01.2024 is quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 1 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 119 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
