9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 197 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay in filing the revised return - delay of 4 years in filing the revised return - revised ROI filed within the period of six years from the end of assessment year, making the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC - HELD THAT - We are of the view that the assessee should have a right to contest his claim and cannot be non-suited merely on the ground of delay. Hence, we are inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay. Further, it is just and appropriate that the Assessing Officer decides the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. We do not think it appropriate to stay the processing of the revised return by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is entitled to pass such orders as he deems fit.
Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for the assessment year 1997-98 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Interpretation of the Board's Circular dated 9-6-2015 regarding condonation of delay. 3. Consideration of reasons for delay in filing the revised return. 4. Discretion of the authority in rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay. 5. Pending adjudication of disputes referred to the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of MICRO LABS LIMITED. Detailed Analysis: 1. The writ petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing the revised return for the assessment year 1997-98 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The learned Single Judge initially rejected the condonation, stating that the petitioner cannot seek it as a matter of right, even though the claim may not be clearly admissible under law on merits. The Single Judge upheld the authority's discretion in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, leading to the filing of the instant appeal. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay of 4 years in filing the revised return was due to the discovery of a relevant judgment regarding deductions under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Assessing Officer had misinterpreted the Board's Circular dated 9-6-2015. The appellant provided reasons for the delay, citing the judgment in the case of CIT vs. SILVER ARTS PALACE, which influenced the decision to file the revised return within the permissible period. The counsel contended that the delay should be condoned, especially considering the pending matter before the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. MICRO LABS LIMITED. 3. The respondent's counsel disputed the condonation of delay, arguing that there was no valid reason for it. However, if the delay were to be considered, they suggested that the Assessing Officer should await the Supreme Court's decision in the MICRO LABS LIMITED case before proceeding with the assessment. 4. Upon hearing both counsels, the Court found it appropriate to interfere with the rejection of the plea for condonation of delay. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were considered valid and not addressed as a question of law. The Court opined that the assessee should have the right to contest the claim and should not be penalized solely for the delay. Therefore, the Court allowed the application for condonation of delay and directed the Assessing Officer to process the revised return in accordance with the law, without staying the assessment process. 5. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order, and partly allowed the writ petition by condoning the delay in filing the revised return, instructing the Assessing Officer to process it in compliance with the law.
|
