9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Circular which relates to pending application as on 09.06.2015. Petitioner had submitted application on 24.05.2011 before the CBDT and it was pending consideration as on 09.06.2015, the date on which the circular was issued. As long as petitioner has not questioned the validity of para.8 of the circular, petitioner is not entitled for relief sought in the present petition. That apart, conduct of the petitioner is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding whether petitioner is entitled for the relief in the present petition or not? On 24.08.2005, assessment order was passed. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied in respect of portion of the order, petitioner had filed an application under Section 264 and it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to enter the application under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act and condone the delay of two days in making the investment in a specified bond under the provisions of Section 54 EC of the Act. (d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus for Central Board of Direct Taxes- First Respondent for giving instructions to the Assessing Authority- Second Respondent to rectify the assessment made by applying the provisions of Section 154 of the Act and to issue appropriate refund of demand in pursuance of the assessment order dtd: 24.08.2005 (Annexure- A ) paid along with interest eligible under Section 244 A of the Act; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006. After more than 5 years from the date of Commissioner s order dated 21.07.2006, petitioner submitted an application to the CBDT on 24.05.2011 while invoking Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 119 of Income Tax Act seeking for condonation of delay and for appropriate direction to the authorities who are under CBDT. During pendency of the petitioner s application before CBDT, authority by its order dated 24.05.2011 invoking Section 119 of the Income Tax Act issued a circular dated 09.06.2015 (Ann. D ). Pursuant to the factual aspect of the matter read with the circular, CBDT proceeded to reject the petitioner s application dated 24.05.2011 on the score that para.3 of the circular dated 09.06.2015 which mandates concerned autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch has been referred by the CBDT has no application. 7. In support of the petitioner s claim, learned counsel relied on 3 decisions: (1) C.A.6850/2018 disposed of on 20.07.2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 ORS vs M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD . on the issue of circular. That the administrative circular will not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner since it is a quasi judicial authority. (2) DR. (SMT.) SUJATHA RAMESH vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ANOTHER in W.P.No.54672/15 (IT) dated 24.10.2017 wherein, delay has been condoned. (3) Similarly, in the case of DR.SUDHA KRISHNASWAMY vs CHIEF COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX reported in (2018) 101 CCH 0269 Kar.HC (Para.7). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to the petitioner s case. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 12. Crux of the matter in the present petition is, Whether communication dated 13.12.2017 (Annexure F ) is in terms of Section 119(2)(b) read with Circular dated 09.06.2015 or not? 13. The petitioner s application before CBDT could be entertained only in terms of Circular dated 09.06.2015. Paras 3 and 8 reads as under: 3. No condonation application for claim of refund/loss shall be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which such application/claim is made. This limit of six years shall be applicable to all authorities having powers to condone the delay as per the above prescribed m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 for which petitioner has not appraised this Court by adducing any documentary evidence so as to examine whether delay could be condoned or not. Even for condoning the delay, para.8 of the circular would be a hurdle which is not questioned by the petitioner. The cited decisions has no assistance to the petitioner having regard to the factual aspect of the present matter. Petitioner has not explained the inordinate delay and laches from 21.07.2006 to 24.05.2011. The cited decision in the case of Dr.Sujatha supra was within the time limit in terms of circular dated 09.06.2015. As regards Dr.Sudha s case is concerned, matter relates to refund of TDS. In view of these facts and circumstances and preceding analysis, writ petition stands dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
