9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter verifying the accounts produced by the petitioner to substantiate his declaration of total income. The 2nd respondent shall pass consequential orders as directed in this judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioner. Also if the assessment proceedings completed by the 2nd respondent, as directed in this judgment, results in the grant of any amount by way of refund to the petitioner, the petitioner will not be entitled to claim any interest on the amount paid to him by way of refund. - WP(C).No. 11701 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2014 - MR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J FOR THE APPELLANT : ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.M.V.BIPIN FOR THE RESPONDENT : A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n effecting payments to him, and it was the case of the petitioner that he did not have sufficient income in the said year as would justify the payment of tax to the extent of ₹ 36,304/-, he approached the respondent authorities with a petition for condonation of delay in filing of the return for the assessment year 1999-2000, so that an assessment could be done for the said year and as a consequence, the petitioner could claim a refund of the tax paid in excess for the said year. The application for condonation of delay came to be considered by the 1st respondent, who proceeded to reject the same on the ground that the petitioner had not succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay. The decision of the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner from 1994-95 till 1998-99. For the assessment year 1994-95 to 1997-98, the total income assessed was nil and the petitioner did not have to pay any tax for the said years. For the assessment year 1998-99, the total income assessed was in a sum of ₹ 4,840/- and the tax paid by the petitioner was an amount of ₹ 8,538/-. The higher amount of tax paid obviously is a reference to the amounts, that were collected from the petitioner at source in connection with the contract that the petitioner had in the said year with the Forest Department. For the assessment year 1999-2000, although it is not in dispute that there is a delay occasioned by the petitioner in the filing of the return, it is the specific case of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that the petitioner is not a habitual offender when it comes to complying with the procedure prescribed for filing returns under the IT Act, I quash Ext.P10 order and direct the 2nd respondent to complete the income tax assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1999-2000, by treating the delay in filing the return as condoned, and by taking into account Ext.P2 series of certificates produced by him and after verifying the accounts produced by the petitioner to substantiate his declaration of total income. The 2nd respondent shall pass consequential orders as directed in this judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioner. I make it clear that if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
