9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... putably, application under Section 119[2][b] of the Act was filed by the appellant assessee on 24.05.2011 before the respondent No.1. Had the respondent No.1 considered the said application before issuance of the Circular dated 09.06.2015, certainly the said application would not have been rejected on the ground of delay i.e., beyond the period of six years as specified in the Circular dated 09.06.2015. It is also not in dispute that no provisions of the Act and Rule prescribes the period of limitation for filing the application under Section 119[2][b], it is only by virtue of the Circular dated 09.06.2015, period of limitation of six years has been prescribed for the first time. It would be beneficial to refer to the judgment of the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gemini Distilleries supra. - W.A.No.3797/2019 (T – IT) - - - Dated:- 7-4-2022 - HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR APPELLANT (BY SRI S. PARTHASARATHI SMT.JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVS.) RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) J U D G M E N T S. SUJATHA, J., This intra Court appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No. 23502/2018 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the assessee has been dismissed. 2. The appellant, an income tax assessee had filed return of income relating to the assessment year 2003-04 declaring NIL income after claiming the exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent to entertain the application under Section 154 of the Act and to grant the appropriate relief. The first respondent rejected the application vide order dated 13.12.2017. The said order was assailed in the Writ Petition which came to be dismissed. Hence, this Writ Appeal by the assessee. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the application filed under Section 119[2][b] of the Act was rejected by the first respondent only on the ground of limitation placing reliance on the CBDT Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015. The delay in investing the amount in bonds was only of two days and a genuine ground was put forth for condoning the said delay of two days which was unintentional. The learned Single Judge failed to appre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 264 of the Act passed on 21.07.2006. Having regard to the same, filing of the application under Section 119[2][b] belatedly cannot be condoned. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The Writ Court has rejected the Writ Petition mainly referring to Clause [8] of the Circular dated 09.06.2015 which reads thus: 8. This circular will cover all such applications/claims for condonation of delay under section 119(2xb) which are pending as on the date of issue of the Circular. 8. Indisputably, application under Section 119[2][b] of the Act was filed by the appellant assessee on 24.05.2011 before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see should not suffer where no default was committed by him in submitting the application under Section 119[2][b] of the Act on 24.05.2011 i.e., when there was no period of limitation prescribed. No application could be denied on technical grounds. Given the circumstances, without dwelling upon this issue further, to balance the scales of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order dated 13.12.2017 impugned and remand the matter to the respondent No.1 for re-consideration of the application filed on 24.05.2011 to take an appropriate decision on the merits of the case in accordance with law. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gemini D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
