9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o this petition. On 03.11.2004, the petitioner's representative met the Commissioner of Income-tax-IV, Central Revenue Building, New Delhi and informed him that the return for the assessment year 2004-05 alongwith the covering letter dated 01.11.2004 was filed on 02.11.2004. A letter dated 03.11.2004 was also sent to the said Commissioner of Income-tax for information and record. A copy of the same was marked to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range XII, Central Revenue Building, New Delhi. We may point out that in the return of income, the petitioner had declared a loss of ₹ 2,74, 83,730/-. This fact is recorded in the assessment order. The assessment order passed on 01.12.2006, wherein it has been noted in the very fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uashing of the same. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that since this was a case of a loss return, there was no provision under law for condoning the delay in filing the return. The learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to the provisions of Section 139(3), Section 80, Section 119 and, in particular, to Section 119(2)(b). She contended that there was no specific provision contained in Section 119 (2)(b) which permitted the board to condone the delay in filing a return and that the said provision only applied to applications or claims for exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under the said Act. 5. We find that the very same contention was raised before the Karnataka High Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed, such time limit could be extended and the delay could be condoned by the Board. It rejected the finding of the Board that the application of claim referred to in Section 119 (2)(b) did not cover a loss claim made in a return. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to Circular No.8/2001 dated 16.05.2001 which was with reference to the Board's order under Section 119 (2)(b) dated 12.10.1993 and Circular No.670 dated 26.10.1993 which laid down the procedure for condonation of delay in the case of belated claims of refund. In paragraph 3 of the said Circular dated 16.05.2001, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Associated Electro Ceramics (supra) has been specifically noted. The said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a claim for carry forward of losses is made. 8. Coming back to the facts of the present case, we find that the impugned order under Section 119 passed by the Board is a non-speaking one. Normally, we would have remanded the matter to the Board to consider the application of the petitioner afresh. However, we find that in the present case, the delay is only of one day and the circumstances have been explained and have not been controverted by the respondents. 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
