9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... photocopies of the certificates without the originals being produced for verification or filed. The reason advanced by the petitioner for the delay in filing the return of income that one Bhai Mohan Singh, the treasurer of the petitioner, who signed the belated return of income was out of the country is not found correct as the Form No.10, which was annexed to the return of income was dated 30.10.1998 and was signed by the treasurer himself. He had also signed the audited accounts attached to the return and these accounts were signed on 21.05.1999; therefore the reasons for the delay in filing the return of income were found to be factually incorrect. As regards the reasons given by the petitioner in its application dated 21.12.2006 ere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndable. Apparently, the return was neither processed under Section 143(1) nor any notice under Section 143(2) was issued for the purpose of making an assessment under Section 143(3) and therefore, no refund was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner made several representations to the concerned authorities on various dates, including the Grievance Cell of the income tax department seeking the refund together with interest up-to-date but to no avail. Thereafter on 19.04.2005 a letter was addressed by the petitioner to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) explaining the delay in making the refund and enclosing a copy of the return of income. A request was made that the delay in filing the return may be condoned and the refund be grante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to refund the amount along with interest till date. 4. The contention of the revenue, articulated in the counter affidavit is that the return of income was due to be filed on 31.10.1998 but was actually filed only on 10.10.2000 which is beyond the period prescribed under Section 139(1) and Section 139(4) of the Act and, therefore, it was non est, on the basis of which no processing under Section 143(1) or no assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act can be made. It is pointed out that no TDS certificates were enclosed with the return of income either in original or in photocopies, nor was any audit report attached to the return of income. It is further contended that after receipt of the petitioner s application dated 27.08.2003 in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 139(1) and even Section 139(4) of the Act. Under section 139(1) of the Act, the petitioner ought to have filed the return of income on or before 31.10.1998. Under section 139(4) of the Act, the assessee who has not furnished a return within the time allowed under Section 139(1) or within the time allowed under a notice issued under Section 142(1), may furnish the return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Under this sub-section the petitioner ought to have filed the return on or before 31.03.2000. However, the return was filed only on 10.10.2000. Under general principles, a refund o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner further because a perusal of the certificate issued on 13.03.2006 by the Punjab National Bank, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi shows that apart from showing the date of deposit, the amount deposited, the challan number and the date of onward submission to the government, no details as to whose credit the tax was deposited are shown. From the certificate it is not possible to establish that the tax was deposited to the credit of the petitioner. The PAN number of the person to whose credit the tax was deposited is not shown in the certificate. The respondent was, therefore, right in not acting upon the certificate issued by the bank. Thus there is no evidence for the deposit of the TDS to the credit of the petitioner. 7. The order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eto. In these circumstances, the respondent has rightly stated that the explanation of the petitioner and the reasons for the delay cannot be accepted, as they were not beyond the control of the petitioner. 8. As regards the reasons given by the petitioner in its application dated 21.12.2006, namely that there were serious differences within the family which was concerned with the affairs of the petitioner, due to which Bhai Mohan Singh was forced to relinquish the treasurership of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., the respondent has noticed that these reasons were an afterthought as they were not given in the application made by the petitioner for the first time on 19.04.2005; he has also stated that there was no supporting evidence to show tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
