9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Petitioner's claim for deduction under section 80U(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - Rejection of petitioner's claim by the second respondent. - Petitioner's awareness of legal provisions and implications. - Delay in filing applications under section 154 and 264 of the Act. - Justifiability of the reasons given by the Commissioner for rejection. - Legal implications of petitioner's profession as a chartered accountant. - Interpretation of relevant legal precedents by the court. Analysis: The judgment pertains to three writ petitions where the petitioner, a chartered accountant, challenged the common order of the second respondent declining to grant the deduction claimed under section 80U(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had suffered a stroke in January 1974, leading to partial disability, which eventually forced his retirement from a partnership. Initially, the petitioner did not claim the benefit under section 80U(ii) due to a misunderstanding regarding the eligibility criteria based on permanent disability. However, upon learning of a clarification by the Central Board of Direct Taxes allowing for partial disability, the petitioner sought rectification under sections 154 and 264 of the Act. The Commissioner rejected the petitioner's application under section 264, citing the petitioner's profession as a chartered accountant and partner in multiple firms as evidence of awareness of legal provisions, thereby implying that the delay in filing was unjustifiable. The petitioner's counsel argued that the delay was reasonable considering the circumstances and cited legal precedents supporting the consideration of mistakes by professionals in condoning delays. The court acknowledged the petitioner's reasons for the delay and found the Commissioner's rejection unjustified, emphasizing the duty of tax officers to assist taxpayers in claiming rightful deductions. The court held that the petitioner's failure to produce the necessary certificate at the time of filing returns did not absolve the officer from considering the deduction claim, especially given the subsequent filing of applications upon clarification of legal provisions. Consequently, the court set aside the common order of the second respondent and directed a reconsideration of the applications under section 264 of the Act on their merits, allowing the writ petitions without costs. The judgment highlights the importance of considering genuine reasons for delays in claiming deductions and the duty of tax authorities to assist taxpayers in availing their entitled reliefs.
|
