9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory auditors cannot but be said to be beyond the control of the petitioner. The averments in paragraph 7 of the application dt. 9.1.2010 Annexure-B is over sufficient cause for the delay in filing the return on 6.7.2006 and the revised return on 30.5.2008, though the words 'revised return filed on 30.5.2008' is not specifically stated - The reason assigned by the CBDT in its order Annexure-A declining the request of the petitioner to correct/revise the order dt. 11.7.2011 Annexure-C insofar as it relates to condoning the delay upto 30.5.2008 when the revised return was filed, in the factual matrix, is perverse - the order dt 11.7.2011 Annexure-C stands modified to condone the delay in filing the revised return of income for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent in compliance with the said order concluded the assessment on 2.8.2011 Annexure-D, subject-matter of appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 2. Petitioner having noticed that the order dt.11.7.2011 Annexure-C of the CBDT made reference to the carrying forward of loss of Rs. 1,27,77,270/- for the assessment year 2005-06, without reference to the revised return filed on 30.5.2008 filed a petition Annexure-E for rectification/amendment of the said order, which, when rejected by letter dt. 30.7.2012 Annexure-A has resulted in this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the revised return on 30.5.2008 was due to the statutory auditor making available to the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. Learned counsel submits that in the absence of use of the specific words 'revised return filed on 30.5.2008' for the assessment year 2005-06 in the application dated 9.1.2010 Annexure-B to condone the delay, the authorities were fully justified in condoning the delay only in respect of the original return filed on 6.7.2006. In addition, it is contended that CBDT being the delegatee of power under section 119 of the Act, in the matter of condonation of delay is required to scrupulously examine the applications filed and in the instant case, having done so noticed that there was no request to condone to the delay, in filing the revised return on 30.5.2008, hence the claim of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e return and revised return within the time stipulated under section 139 of the Act, as observed by the CBDT in the order Annexure-C, cannot be attributed to the petitioner since being a co-operative society is bound by the provisions of KCS Act to have its books of account audited by a statutory auditor and until the submission of the final audit report. The delay in submission of the reports by the statutory auditors cannot but be said to be beyond the control of the petitioner. 10. It is no doubt true that in the application, Annexure-B the words, 'revised return filed on 30.5.2008' is not forthcoming, nevertheless in paragraph 3 specific reference is made to the loss carried forward i.e. Rs. 1,27,77,270/- as indicated in the Profit an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
