9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority can use such power. As in the past, at the time when the claim of the petitioner was considered, there was no such instruction or order from the Board, in the present matter such benefit cannot be given to the petitioner. Thus, no case is made out for interference in the order made by the Commissioner of Income Tax. In the result, both the petitions stand dismissed. - Writ Petition No.3714 of 2013 With Writ Petition No.4499 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2018 - T.V. NALAWADE SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. Shri. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for petitioner. Shri. Alok Sharma Standing Counsel, for respondents. Shri. M.M. Nerlikar, Assistant Government Pleader, for State of Maharashtra. ORDER (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.) 1) The fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 20052006 the return was filed on 29-10-2005 and carried forward loss was assessed at ₹ 1,12,116/-. For both the assessment years the assessee, petitioner-company had paid MAT under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act through self assessment, like tax of ₹ 2,72,300/- for assessment year 2004-05 and ₹ 48,720/- for assessment year 2005-06 and in those returns no refund was claimed. It is the contention of the petitioner-company that due to financial problems faced by it, it had applied to State Bank of India for one time settlement in respect of the outstanding loan taken for the business and the bank had considered positively the request made and relief to the extent of ₹ 4,93,87,291/- was given and out of that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere not the first time returns and the original returns were filed on 9-9-2005 and 29-10-2005 respectively and admittedly in those returns refund was not claimed. With the previous returns there was certificate of C.A. and with the new returns certificate of another C.A. was produced by the petitioner-company. 6) In section 237 of the Income Tax Act provision is made for refund of income tax paid in excess. In section 239 of the Act the limitation period is given which is one year from the last date of the assessment year and revised returns were also required to be filed within one year. When such period of limitation is prescribed under the Act, the application was filed on 12-5-2009, many years after the expiry of the period prescribe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether there is arguable prima facie case in favour of the applicant. That point is not considered in detail and there is no need to do it in the present proceeding also. 8) The provision section 119(2)(b) runs as under : 119. Instructions to subordinate authorities. (1) . . . . (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, -- (a) . . . . (b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case of class of cases, by general or special order, authorise any income-tax-authority, not being a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case reported as (2005) 1 RCR (Criminal) 591 (Jaswant Singh Bambha v. Central Board of Direct Taxes And Others). Reliance is also placed on the case reported as 2010 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 196 (Sitaldas K. Motwani v. Director General of Income Tax Ors). On the basis of the observations made in these cases it was submitted for the petitioner that there is power with the Board to issue such instructions or order and so the Commissioner ought to have condoned the delay. On this point, learned counsel for the respondent, Department, placed reliance on some observations made by the Apex Court in the cases reported as (1) 2008 AIR SCW 1461 (Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, and, (2) (2009) 5 SCC 791 (Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
