2013 (1) TMI 402 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80-IC - delay in filing application u/s 80-AC for claiming the benefit - writ petition before this Court against application rejected - Held that - Though the petitioner definitely has an alternative remedy under Section 253 in case the petitioner so desires she may approach the Central Board of Direct Taxation under Section 119 (2). It is made clear that in case the petitioner moves an application before the Central Board of Direct Taxation under Section 119 (2), the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible - writ petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act and rejection of application due to delay.
2. Objection raised regarding alternative remedy under Section 253 of the Act.
3. Possibility of moving an application before the Central Board of Direct Taxation under Section 119 (2) of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act but faced rejection due to a delay of 7 days in filing the application, which was required to be submitted by 30th September. Subsequently, the petitioner's appeal to the Appellate Authority was also dismissed, leading to the filing of a writ petition challenging both rejections before the High Court.

2. During the examination of the case, the Revenue's counsel raised an objection, pointing out that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available to file an appeal under Section 253 of the Act. This raised a procedural question regarding the petitioner's choice of remedy in light of the rejection of the initial application.

3. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the possibility of seeking recourse by moving an application before the Central Board of Direct Taxation under Section 119 (2) of the Act. However, the Revenue's objection was based on the concern that any direction from the Central Board of Direct Taxation could potentially interfere with the order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I on a prior date.

4. The Court acknowledged the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 253 of the Act but also allowed for the option to approach the Central Board of Direct Taxation under Section 119 (2) if desired. It was emphasized that any application made to the Central Board of Direct Taxation should be dealt with promptly to ensure a timely resolution of the matter.

5. Ultimately, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the understanding that the petitioner could pursue the available alternative remedies as discussed during the proceedings.

6. The judgment concluded with a directive for no specific order regarding costs, bringing closure to the legal proceedings related to the deduction claim under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act.