9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of tax at source from payments made to the contractors are normally prepared and handed over to the contractors immediately on effecting the collection. Thereafter, the contractors are expected to file returns to the Income Tax Department together with copies of the certificate showing collection of tax at source, so that credit can be given in their assessments, for the amounts so collected from the payments due to the contractors. In the case of the petitioner, for the assessment year 1999-2000, although the tax collection certificates were issued to the petitioner as early as on 27.4.1998 and 19.5.1998, the petitioner did not file his return under the Income Tax Act till 10.9.2003. Ideally, the petitioner ought to have filed his ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed therein. In particular, it is pointed out that the petitioner had not properly explained the delay occasioned by him in filing the return. It is pointed out that the power to condone delay has to be exercised taking into account the facts and circumstances in each case and since, in the instant case, the 1st respondent was not convinced of the reasons projected by the petitioner for the delay, Ext.P10 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 3. I have heard Sri.M.V. Bipin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner for seeking condonation of delay in filing the return. In Ext.P10 order, while the 1st respondent disbelieves the reasons given by the petitioner, I am of the view that insofar as the petitioner is a person who has been filing returns in time during the previous assessment years, and the delay occasioned in filing the return in the assessment year 1999-2000 was an isolated instance, the petitioner could not be treated at par with habitual offenders while considering the application for condonation of delay. On the peculiar facts of this case, I am of the view that the discretion vested in the 1st respondent, under Section 119 (2b) of the IT Act, ought to have been exercised in favour of the petitioner, taking into account the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
