9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the claim of the petitioner has been dealt with on merits. It is also pertinent to mention that the circular dated 09.06.2015 does not apply in cases of Central Board of Direct Taxes. However, by placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, the claim of the petitioner for condonation of delay has been held to be not admissible and has been rejected. In the considered opinion of this Court and in the fact situation of the case as well as bearing in mind the well settled legal proposition that the expression genuine hardship should receive liberal consideration, the instant case was a fit case for condonation of delay. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erstwhile management of the Company i.e. promoters and new management i.e. investors of the petitioner Company. In 2014, a petition was also filed before the Company Law Board alleging oppression and mismanagement of the investors. In the aforesaid petition, an interlocutory application was also filed seeking appointment of an administrator to oversee the affairs of the Company as there was deadlock in the management of the petitioner. The Company Law Board appointed an administrator to oversee the affairs of the Company. The orders passed by the Company Law Board was challenged before this Court in which a Bench of this Court passed an order in October 2014 by which an auditor was appointed to audit the books of accounts for the financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the expression genuine hardship used under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act has to be construed liberally. It is further submitted that while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, Central Board of Direct Taxes could not have examined the merits of the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 3 of the order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and has submitted that the Prl. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka and Goa as well as Additional Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Assessing Officer had als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases by general or special order. The expression genuine hardship was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of B.M.MALANI Vs. CIT (2008) 10 SCC 617 and it has been held that the ingredients of the expression genuine hardship must be determined keeping in view the discretionary meaning thereof and legal conspectus attending thereto. It is well settled in law that the expression genuine hardship should be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of justice. It is equally well settled legal proposition that the authority must satisfy itself with regard to the genuineness of the claim. However, the same does not mean that the authority should examine the merits of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of the petitioner has been dealt with on merits. It is also pertinent to mention that the circular dated 09.06.2015 does not apply in cases of Central Board of Direct Taxes. However, by placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, the claim of the petitioner for condonation of delay has been held to be not admissible and has been rejected. 2. In the considered opinion of this Court and in the fact situation of the case as well as bearing in mind the well settled legal proposition that the expression genuine hardship should receive liberal consideration, the instant case was a fit case for condonation of delay. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the Central Government is he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
