9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect PAN - Income Tax Authorities have also reflected the TDS amount of old PAN against the new PAN Number of the petitioner, as an Association of Persons - petitioner seeking condonation of delay beyond the period of six years from the end of the Assessment Year - HELD THAT:- When Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act authorizes the Board to issue instructions, directions or orders to the Income Tax Authorities to admit an application, or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund, or any other relief under the Act after the expiry of the period of limitation specified by or under the Act, along with the said power goes the power to prescribe the conditions, upon which such delayed applications may be entertained. Since the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Ravi Sehgal and Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsels. Counsel for the respondents. : Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel. JUDGMENT : (PER SRI VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.) The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition to seek the following reliefs :- a. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the credit of the Tax Deducted at Source ('TDS') amounting to Rs. 14,61,201/- pertaining to the A.Y. 2008-09 to the Petitioner deducted by the Executive Engineer, Rural Electrification Division, Raniket under the incorrect PAN AACCG5304J which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Persons (AOP). The petitioner had applied for, and obtained the PAN Number in respect of the said Association of Persons. Petitioner states that the petitioner was issued PAN No. AACCG5304J. The said PAN Number related to a company, and not to an Association of Persons. Petitioner states that due to the said error in issuance of the PAN Card, TDS of the amount of Rs. 14,61,201/-, deducted by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, Ranikhet - for whom the petitioner performed a contract, was not reflected in Form 26AS in the new PAN No. AAAAG5553D, which the petitioner obtained as an Association of Persons. 3. Petitioner further states that the petitioner requested for cancellation of the old PAN Number on 19.06.2008, since the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f refund/loss shall be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which such application/claim is made. The application of the assessee is not covered by the aforesaid CBDT's circular, being beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which application has been filed. 4. Since the petitioner was not covered by the aforesaid Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015, and that came as a stumbling block in the petitioner seeking condonation of delay beyond the period of six years from the end of the Assessment Year pertaining to which the application/ claim was made, the petitioner has assailed the said Circular as well, in this Writ Petition. The relevant clause of Circular No. 9/2015, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act authorizes the Board to issue orders to the Income Tax Authorities to entertain remedies available under the Act, by way of application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund, or any other relief beyond the period of limitation. However, the same does not permit the Board to lay down an outer-limit of time, during which such application for condonation of delay may be entert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. The rectification application could be filed by the petitioner within four years of the expiry of the Assessment Year. Admittedly, the petitioner did not do so. By resorting to Clause 3 of Circular No. 9/2015, the petitioner could have sought condonation of delay, in moving the rectification application by another two years. The petitioner did not file the rectification application either within the period of limitation, or even within the period for which the delay could be condoned, i.e. up to six years. The petitioner moved the rectification application only in the year 2021, i.e. after over 12 years. 10. It is well settled that, with the expiry of limitation, the law bars the remedy even if the right is not extinguished. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
