9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1013 - HC - Wealth-taxRevision u/s 25 by Pr. CIT/CIT - condonation of delay - HELD THAT - More importantly, writ petitioners have also paid the tax on wealth that has been overstated in the returns. As already been alluded to supra that respondent has even recorded in the impugned orders that the properties which have been erroneously included in the returns by the writ petitioners are clearly exempt u/s 2(ea)(i)(4). It is not completely forbidden to have a cursory look and have a birds eye view qua merits of the matter while testing whether delay in a given case deserves to be condoned. As this cannot be the sole determinant, this Court has considered the same as one of the buttressing features in search of an answer to the question as to whether delay is condonable / can be condoned in the instant cases. Section 25 of said Act is akin to Section 264. This Court has already passed an order RAMUPILLAI KUPPURAJ VERSUS THE ITO 2019 (7) TMI 303 - MADRAS HIGH COURT with regard to condonation of delay in a matter pertaining to Section 264. This Court is informed that as of now there is no intra-court appeal against the said order and therefore, the said order is operating. The circumstances and facts are also more or less similar. The principle nonetheless applies. From a perusal of Section 8 it comes to light that exercise of powers of respondent u/s 25 is clearly comparable with exercise of powers of Pr. CIT/CIT u/s 264. Owing to all that have been set out supra, it follows as a sequitur that this is a fit case to set aside Impugned Order I. Impugned order I being order dated 10.08.2018 is set aside and Writ Petition No.28432 of 2019 is allowed. With regard to Impugned Order II, the same is set aside insofar as it rejects the writ petitioner's request for condonation of delay for Assessment years 2003-04 to 2010-2011. The other part of impugned order II wherein prayer for condonation of delay for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 was acceded to is sustained. Now that the delay has been condoned, request of writ petitioner for refund shall be examined on merits, in accordance with law and disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any event within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent was justified in refusing to condone the delay for the assessment years in question. 2. The applicability and interpretation of Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in relation to condonation of delay. 3. The impact of Board Circular No.9/2015 on the condonation of delay requests. 4. The relevance of precedents and judicial principles in deciding the condonation of delay. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification for Refusing to Condon the Delay: The primary issue is whether the respondent was justified in refusing to condone the delay for the assessment years (AYs) 2003-04 to 2010-11. The petitioners argued that they had erroneously included commercial establishments and residential properties in their Wealth Tax returns, unaware of the exemption under Section 2(ea)(i)(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. They realized this mistake only in 2015 and sought revision under Section 25 of the Act. The respondent rejected the condonation of delay for AYs 2003-04 to 2010-11 but accepted it for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Court noted that the petitioners had over-reported their wealth and paid taxes on the overstated returns, which was acknowledged by the respondent. 2. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957: Section 25(1)(c)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, which is akin to Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, deals with the revisional powers of the Commissioner. The Court observed that there is no cap on the time period for condonation of delay under this section. The Court emphasized that the respondent has the power to condone the delay and that the properties included in the returns were clearly exempt under Section 2(ea)(i)(4) of the Act. 3. Impact of Board Circular No.9/2015: The respondent relied on Board Circular No.9/2015, which instructs that delay beyond six years from the relevant AY cannot be condoned. The Court acknowledged that while the Board Circulars bind the respondent, they do not restrict the Court's power to condone the delay if deemed fit. The Court highlighted that the petitioners' case involved overstatement of wealth, not understatement or non-filing of returns, and that they had paid taxes on the overstated wealth. 4. Relevance of Precedents and Judicial Principles: The Court referred to several precedents, including the Vinay Extraction Pvt. Limited case and the Padma Sundara Rao case, to emphasize that each case must be decided based on its facts and circumstances. The Court noted that the petitioners had been pursuing their case diligently and that the facts and records supported their claim for condonation of delay. The Court also referred to its previous order in W.P.No.7630 of 2019, which dealt with a similar issue under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, to support its decision. Conclusion: The Court set aside Impugned Order I, which rejected the condonation of delay for AYs 2003-04 to 2010-11, and allowed W.P.No.28432 of 2019. It also set aside Impugned Order II insofar as it rejected the condonation of delay for AYs 2003-04 to 2010-11, while sustaining the part that accepted the condonation for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Court directed that the petitioners' request for refund be examined on merits and disposed of within 12 weeks. The writ petitions were ordered on these terms with no costs.
|
