2007 (11) TMI 294 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioner co-operative society filed a return claiming refund of advance tax and tax deducted at source recovered and remitted by others - application u/s 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing the refund application was rejected held that delay in audit by auditor appointed under the Co-operative Societies Act is not attributable to assessee - petitioner has explained delay and substantiated their hardship as it has suffered losses in the five succeeding years delay condoned revenue directed to process the petitioner s claim for refund u/s 237

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing refund application due to delayed statutory audit.
2. Rejection of refund application as time-barred.
3. Consideration of belated return for refund.
4. Tenability of the order rejecting condonation of delay.
5. Interpretation of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act.
6. Merits of the assessee's claim for condonation of delay.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a co-operative society, faced a delay in filing a refund application due to the delayed completion of its statutory audit. Despite being entitled to income tax exemption during the assessment year 1997-98, the petitioner remitted advance tax and had tax deducted at source from its bills. The audit was completed late, leading to the rejection of the refund application as time-barred by the Assessing Officer.

2. The rejection of the refund application was based on it being time-barred, as per the provisions of Chapter XIX of the Income-tax Act, which requires a claim for refund to be made within a specified time limit. The petitioner argued that a belated return for refund should be considered on its merits and not rejected solely based on being time-barred, citing a Karnataka High Court decision.

3. The judgment emphasized the distinction between assessments under Chapter XIV, focused on tax liability and recovery, and refund provisions under Chapter XIX. It highlighted that delay in filing a refund application must be condoned by the Central Board under section 119(2)(b) to consider the belated return for refund on merit.

4. The tenability of the order rejecting condonation of delay was questioned, with the petitioner contending that the Board should have considered the genuine hardship faced by the petitioner due to the delay in filing the refund application. The judgment referenced Circulars and guidelines for condonation of delay issued by the Central Board.

5. Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act was interpreted to authorize the Central Board to condone delay in admitting applications for exemptions, deductions, or refunds to avoid genuine hardship for the assessee. The judgment clarified that the Board should consider the hardship caused if the delay is not condoned, irrespective of meticulous explanations for the delay.

6. The judgment analyzed the merits of the assessee's claim for condonation of delay, noting that the delay in audit by the appointed auditor was not the assessee's fault. It highlighted the financial hardship faced by the co-operative society due to losses in the subsequent years and directed the processing of the refund claim, quashing the order rejecting condonation of delay.

In conclusion, the judgment ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of considering genuine hardship and financial implications while deciding on the condonation of delay in filing refund applications under the Income-tax Act.