2013 (10) TMI 305 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay for filing refund application - Request for refund of the advance tax was rejected by the Chief Commissioner Held that - Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Pala Marketing Co-op. Society Ltd. v. Union of Indian and Ors. 2007 (11) TMI 294 - KERALA HIGH COURT , wherein it has been held that failure to condone the delay causes genuine hardship to the assessee In the present case, delay even though due to the fault of the petitioner, should liberally be condoned in filing the application for refund Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund claim for advance income tax paid for assessment years 1996-97 and 97-98.

Analysis:
The petitioner firm, an assessee under the Indian Income Tax Act, challenged the rejection of its refund claim for advance income tax paid for the assessment years 1996-97 and 97-98 through a writ petition. The petitioner prayed for the quashing of the orders rejecting the refund claim and sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to order the refund as claimed. The petitioner contended that due to delays in filing returns for the mentioned assessment years, the refund claims were rejected by the Chief Commissioner. The returns were filed only after notices were issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, with the return for 1996-97 filed on 30-6-1998 showing a total income of Rs.2520 and an advance tax payment of Rs.1,26,451. Similarly, for the assessment year 1997-98, the return was filed on 29-2-2000 declaring a loss of Rs.3,98,599. The delay in filing the refund claims was attributed to the petitioner's fault, leading to the rejection by the authorities.

The court examined the submissions from both sides and reviewed the materials on record. It noted that the returns for the relevant assessment years were filed by the petitioner only in response to notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, indicating that the filings were not voluntary. The authorities rejected the refund claims due to the belated filing without valid reasons, as mandated by the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment highlighting the hardship caused to the assessee when delays are not condoned, emphasizing the need for the Board to condone delays under Section 119(2)(b) to process applications for refund under Section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act.

In light of the facts and the precedent cited, the court decided to liberally condone the delay in filing the refund application. The court directed the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to reconsider the application for refund afresh on merits in accordance with the law and to pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment copy. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, providing relief to the petitioner by allowing for a fresh consideration of the refund claim.