9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s genuine hardships and realties as contemplated in Ext.P5, Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No.9/2015 dated 9.6.2015. The factual details are as follows : 2. In the year 2010, the petitioner's child was diagnosed as a cancer patient during 2010. thereafter, the petitioner has been running from hospital to hospital in connection with the treatment of his daughter until 2017 when the patient completed the treatment and advised for further follow up action. On 20.06.2016, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2A and Ext.P2B returns for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 before the 2nd respondent. On 29.11.2017, the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram issued Ext.P5 certificate stating completion of treatment. On 11.12.2017, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 return for the assessment year 2012-13 before the 2nd respondent and also filed Ext.P3 application under Sec.119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for condonation of delay in filing returns for the abovesaid periods. On 05.10.2018, the matter was posted for hearing and the petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent and explained the circumstances for the delay in filing returns. On 30.07.2019, the 1st respondent pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3- Income Tax Department, Government of India, Sri.K.Sudeep Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for R4- Union of India. 5. The relevant portion of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides as follows : (b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to be for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorise (any income-tax authority, not being a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law." 6. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued Ext.P5 circular No.9/2015 dated 9.6.2015 and para 5 thereof reads as follows : "5. The powers of acceptance/rejection of the application within the monetary limits delegated to the Pr.CCsIT/CCsIT/Pr.CsIT/CsIT in case of such claims will be subject to the following condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dopting a restrictive approach in such matters particularly when there is no malafide or culpable negligence on the part of the assessee and wherein, it has been held in para 23 thereof as follows : "In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that an acceptable explanation was offered by the petitioner and a case of genuine hardship was made out. The refusal by the CBDT to condone the delay was a result of adoption of an unduly restrictive approach. The CBDT appears to have proceeded on the basis that the delay was deliberate, when from explanation offered by the petitioner, it is clear that the delay was neither deliberate, nor on account of culpable negligence or any malefides. Therefore, the imputed order dated 16 May 2006 made by the CBDT refusing to condone the delay in filing the return of Income for the assessment year 1997-1998 is liable to be set aside. Consistent with the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the said Act, the concerned ITO or the assessing officer would have to consider the return of income and deal with the same on merits and in accordance with law." 9. The petitioner would point out that the Accounts Department has no case that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificate/medical records issued by the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Edappally which deals with the treatment given to the child etc. The petitioner should have given more comprehensive details of the treatment of the child and should also has to sworn to an affidavit regarding the various aspects which compelled him to divert his energies to the business affairs, in view of his pressing compulsions to give more devoted attention to the treatment of his infant daughter. In the absence of such materials, the 1st respondent cannot be blamed for taking an approach of this nature in the impugned order. If the petitioner had placed all the relevant materials, the 1st respondent could have considered all the same and render a considered decision thereon and after adverting to all such relevant aspects. Prima facie, this Court finds force in the abovesaid contention raised by the petitioner on the basis of the dictum laid down by the Bombay High Court in the aforestated judgment in Para No.23 of Artist Tree Pvt.Ltd case (Supra), where it has been held that so long as the delay cannot be said to be deliberate or cannot be said to be on account of culpable neglige ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
