9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 41 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay in filing of return power to DBDT under section 119 return of loss - CBDT rejected the the application of the petitioner under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) whereby a prayer had been made for condoning the delay of one day in filing the return of income in respect of the assessment year 2004-05. held that - The fact of the matter is that the petitioner did reach the Central Revenue Building before the closure of the counter on 01.11.2004. It is only because he was sent from one room to the other and had to wait in long queues that he could not present the return at the counter which was receiving the returns prior to 6.00 p.m. on that date. We feel that sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for the delay of one day in filing the return. If the delay is not condoned it would cause genuine hardship to the petitioner. Thus in the circumstances of this case instead of remanding the matter back to the CBDT we direct that the delay of one day in filing of the return be condoned. decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Associated Electro Ceramics 2008 -TMI - 21127 - KARNATAKA High Court followed.
Issues:
1. Quashing of order by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) rejecting application under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for condoning delay in filing return of income. 2. Interpretation of Section 119(2)(b) regarding condonation of delay in filing return for carry forward of losses. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to quash the CBDT's order rejecting the application to condone a one-day delay in filing the return of income for the assessment year 2004-05. The petitioner's representative reached the Central Revenue Building on the due date but was unable to file the return before the counter closed, leading to the delay. Despite subsequent submissions and explanations, the CBDT rejected the application, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking relief. 2. The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of Section 119(2)(b) concerning the condonation of delay in filing a return for carry forward of losses. The respondent contended that there was no provision under the law to condone the delay in filing a loss return. However, the High Court referred to a similar case before the Karnataka High Court, where it was held that the Board could indeed condone the delay in such cases. The High Court noted Circulars supporting this view and cited precedents from other High Courts, including the Bombay High Court, affirming the Board's authority to condone delays in filing returns for carry forward of losses. 3. The High Court found that the CBDT's non-speaking order lacked sufficient justification for rejecting the petitioner's application. Despite the procedural irregularity, the Court acknowledged the circumstances leading to the delay, where the petitioner had made efforts to file the return on time but was hindered by administrative delays. Given the minimal delay of one day and the absence of any rebuttal from the respondents, the Court concluded that the petitioner had shown a valid cause for the delay. Therefore, the Court directed the condonation of the one-day delay in filing the return, emphasizing the genuine hardship that would be caused if the delay was not excused. 4. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the CBDT's order and directing the condonation of the delay in filing the return of income. The Court highlighted the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case, especially when minimal delays are involved, to prevent undue hardship to the taxpayer. The judgment underscored the Board's authority to exercise discretion in condoning delays, particularly in cases involving the carry forward of losses, as established by legal precedents and circulars supporting such interpretations.
|
