9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Central Board of Direct Taxes rejecting an application made by the petitioner under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The brief facts of the case are these: The petitioner is a private limited company. Its business is manufacture of paints. Commercial production commenced in the year 1974. Income-tax returns were filed for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119 of the Act. The said section empowers the Board to grant relief to assessees, if it is satisfied that any claim or application which was required to be made within the time prescribed under any of the provisions of the Act was not so done for good reasons and to relieve the assessee from hardship. In the application, the petitioner explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to accede to your request. Questioning the legality of the said decision, the petitioner has presented these petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though under subsection (2) of section 119 of the Act, the Board is conferred with the power to grant the relief, the Board had declined to grant the same to the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted the matter for reconsideration. Learned counsel would have been right in his submission if, in this case, the Central Board of Direct Taxes had rejected the petition of the petitioner on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief which the petitioner had sought for at the hands of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Board in this case had given an oral hearing and had als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
