2019 (1) TMI 1412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Advocate For the Respondents : Sri. Y V Raviraj, Advocate ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner is before this Court impugning the order dated 22.11.2013, passed by the 1st respondent, rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay preferred under Section 119(2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ref .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the only ground that is pleaded and the premise on which the application is based. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that a duty was cast on the petitioner to demonstrate genuine hardship and he ought to have set out a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the returns. 5. Having heard the learned counsel and after perusing the reasoning assigned in the impugned orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... available to the Authority by the Assessing Officer. The very fact that the Assessing Officer had reported the fact of the petitioner taking treatment makes out a prima facie case for the petitioner. That being the case, if the Authority desires to adversely infer based on the information furnished by the Assessing Officer, then he ought to have put it to the petitioner before relying upon the sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X