9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit of the tax deducted at source, we are afraid, the same cannot be resolved at this distant point of time. We are referring to the years 2005 and onwards till the fresh PAN was issued in favour of the AOP in the year 2011. Assessments would have been over or time-barred. - Special Civil Application No. 8193 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 4-12-2015 - Akil Kureshi And Mohinder Pal, JJ. For the Appellant : Jaimin A Gandhi, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Sudhir M Mehta, Adv JUDGMENT ( Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi ) 1. Petitioners have challenged an order dated 16.10.2014 as at Annexure-A to the petition passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax on application dated 19.02.2014 filed by the petitioners. 2. Brief facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide his letter dtd 24.05.2012. However, to respond to the letter of the concerned assessing officer i.e. assessing officer, ward-4, he had to file his Return Of Income in the status of firm which may please be appreciated. Sir, the assessee filed his Return of Income as a firm as the coparceners of the AOP were not given the due credit of T.D.S. deducted against their proportionate income of AOP offered for taxation in their returns of individuals and to respond the letters of assessing officer, ward-4 which were issued to the assessee being a 'NON-FILER' of the same. Sir, the status of Return of Income filed by the respective coparceners of the AOP along with the Return of Income of firm and the Return of Income of AOP is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer. Necessary instructions are being issued to the Assessing Officer in this regard. 4. Learned counsel Mr.Gandhi for the petitioners vehemently contended that the authorities committed serious error in not recognizing the error committed by the Department while issuing PAN in favour of the firm when no such application was ever made. He submitted that this is a clear case of genuine hardship and to remove such hardship, delay should have been condoned by exercising powers under sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Act. In support of such contention, counsel relied on the following decisions: (I) 34 Taxmann.com 61 (uj.) in case of Jay Vijay Express Carriers v. CIT. (II) 323 ITR 223 (Bom.) in case of Sitadas Motwani v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections. 8. For severals reasons, the prayers made in the petition cannot be granted. First and foremost, the PAN was issued way back in the year 2005 on an application made by the petitioners. If there was any inaccuracy, the petitioners ought to have got it corrected within a reasonable time. For the first time in the year 2014, the petitioners applied to the Commissioner for giving suitable directions. This is not a case where the hardship can be removed under section 119 of the Act. In the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jay Vijay Express Carriers (supra), while giving suitable directions for entertaining an application belatedly filed, following observations were made to safeguard against undue relaxation of suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
