9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -89 and 1989-90 was around three years, for the year 1990-91 the return was delayed by around five years. Since the returns filed were belated, those returns were not acted upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the returns before the Commissioner of Income-tax who rejected it by exhibit P-4 order dated February 26, 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another petition, exhibit P-5, on May 31, 1996, requesting the Commissioner to reconsider exhibit P-4. Then, the Commissioner allowed the petition to condone the delay. Since exhibit P-5 was not considered for a long time, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this court for direction to consider exhibit P-5. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the matter should be sent back to the Chief Commissioner for reconsideration, having regard to the convincing reasons furnished by the respondents through the statement filed in this court, I do not think the petitioner will get relief even if the matter is remanded to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. The returns were filed by the petitioner with substantial delay of three to five years and such returns could not be entertained unless the delay was condoned by the Commissioner of Income-tax, in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Even though the petitioner's first effort was unsuccessful, substantial delay in filing returns was later condoned by exhibit P-13 order dated October 13, 1999. It is seen from exhibit P-14 that a rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was due, though not filed by the petitioner. In other words, delay in filing the return being attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner was held entitled to interest under section 244A(2) of the Act for the period of delay in filing the returns. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the delay in disposal of the application filed for condonation of delay is attributable to the Department and so much so such period should be included for the purpose of interest. Of course, if there was undue delay in disposal of the statutory application, the delay should not be treated as attributable to the petitioner. However, in this case, it is seen that the first application for condonation was disposed of vide exhibit P-4. The delay happene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
