9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 350 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay denied - revision petition dismissed mainly on the ground of technicality - granting exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Held that - As brought to the notice of this Court that in identical circumstances, in the case of CIT vs Sri Biluru Gurubasappa Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha 2015 (1) TMI 821 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT the very CIT has condoned the delay and allowed the petition granting exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. For the subsequent assessment years 2008-09, 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Commissioner for Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of very petitioner, has granted exemption from payment of tax. In all fairness, the Commissioner while passing the impugned order ought not to have rejected the application for condonation of delay as well as revision petition. When the Commissioner himself has granted exemption to subsequent years to the very petitioner and the Board s Instruction No.13/2006 dated 22.12.2006 clearly depicts that up to six years application for refund can be entertained, but in the present case it is only two years. Therefore, the Commissioner for Income Tax ought to have proceeded to condone the delay and decide the revision petition on merits. It is well settled that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent as per Annexures-H and K are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded for consideration afresh.
Issues:
1. Application for condonation of delay in filing revised return. 2. Rejection of application for exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. 3. Dismissal of revision petition on technical grounds. Issue 1: Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing Revised Return The petitioner, a Society, filed a return of income for the assessment year 2007-08, initially declaring income and later filing a revised return claiming deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the revised return was condoned by the petitioner. Subsequently, a Revision Petition was filed challenging an earlier intimation, leading to a series of legal proceedings and orders. The Commissioner of Income Tax ultimately rejected the delay application, leading to the filing of a writ petition seeking to quash this decision. Issue 2: Rejection of Application for Exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act The petitioner contended that as a Cooperative Society, it was entitled to exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The petitioner argued that previous judgments and subsequent grants of exemption by the Commissioner supported their claim. The petitioner also highlighted the technicality of the rejection based on delay, which was not in line with previous decisions and the Board's instructions. The petitioner sought to quash the order rejecting the exemption application. Issue 3: Dismissal of Revision Petition on Technical Grounds The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on technical grounds, despite previous grants of exemption and the Board's instructions allowing for refund applications within a specified timeframe. The petitioner argued that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, emphasizing the need to correct injustice rather than uphold technicalities. The Court noted previous judgments and remanded the matter for reconsideration in line with established legal principles and prior decisions. In a detailed analysis, the Court considered the petitioner's entitlement to exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act as a Cooperative Society, emphasizing previous judgments and subsequent grants of exemption by the Commissioner for other assessment years. The Court highlighted the need for substantial justice over technical considerations, ultimately allowing the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders, and remanding the matter for fresh consideration in line with legal principles and prior decisions.
|
