9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority cannot ignore the fact of deduction of tax at source, from payments made to the petitioner during the relevant previous year, while completing the assessment for the assessment year in question. This would be more so because, after deduction of tax at source, the person deducting tax at source would have issued the necessary intimation to the Income Tax Department while forwarding the deducted tax amounts to the Department on behalf of the petitioner assessee. No valid justification for the 4th respondent to have rejected the request of the petitioner under S. 119 (2) of the Act, more so when granting the relaxation as prayed for by the petitioner would not have prejudiced the interests of the department in any manner. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred an application under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act for condonation of the delay in filing the revised return. The said application came to be rejected by Ext.P9 order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.09.2019, inter alia, on the finding that the petitioner had failed to furnish any document to support his claim that the Tahsildhar (LA) had filed the TDS return belatedly. The Principal Commissioner also found that the petitioner had not established that he would face genuine financial hardship if the refund was not granted to him. It is apparent from Ext.P9 order that the Principal Commissioner was guided by the contents of Ext.P11 Circular that was issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes prescribing guid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of S.139 (4), as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 01.04.2017, any person who had not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (i), could furnish a return of any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. The petitioner not having filed a return for the assessment year within the time allowed to him under sub- section (i) could, therefore, have filed a revised return on or before 31.03.2016, the date of expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year viz.2014-2015. In the instant case, as already noticed, the petitioner filed two returns, one on 06.11.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant previous year, while completing the assessment for the assessment year in question. This would be more so because, after deduction of tax at source, the person deducting tax at source would have issued the necessary intimation to the Income Tax Department while forwarding the deducted tax amounts to the Department on behalf of the petitioner assessee. I, therefore, find that there was no valid justification for the 4th respondent to have rejected the request of the petitioner under S. 119 (2) of the Act, more so when granting the relaxation as prayed for by the petitioner would not have prejudiced the interests of the department in any manner. The decision relied upon by counsel for the petitioner also justifies the said findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
