9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Principal Commissioner to exercise the said discretion on its behalf, but such authorisation cannot confer on the Principal Commissioner a greater discretion than what is contemplated under the Act in favour of the Board. In the instant case, we find that Ext.P10 circular authorises the Principal Commissioner to consider even the merits of the refund claim while exercising the delegated power under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. This is plainly illegal for the mandate of the Act cannot be circumvented through any administrative circular issued by the Board. Whether or not there was any justifiable reason for the delay in preferring the refund application was not considered by the Principal Commissioner on merits ? - The present refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR AND HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH For the Petitioner: By Advs. S. Krishnamoorthy, Sneha Rose, P.S. Aruna For the Respondents : By Adv Christopher Abraham, SC JUDGMENT DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. The unsuccessful writ petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 32420 of 2017 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.7.2023 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: The appellant had approached this Court through the writ petition aforementioned impugning the order dated 26.5.2017 of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, whereby an application preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of the TDS amounts deducted from the enhanced compensation amount disbursed to her husband. She came to know of the said requirement only on 19.8.2015 on which date she filed a 'nil' return on behalf of her husband with an application for condonation of delay in terms of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The delay sought to be condoned was for the period from 31.7.2012 which was the last date for filing the return on behalf of the husband, till 19.8.2015 which was the date on which a 'nil' return was actually filed seeking a refund of the TDS amount in question. The application under Section 119 (2)(b) came to be considered by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, who, by the order dated 26.5.2017 impugned in the writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case was of genuine hardship on merits, the order of the Principal Commissioner on the merits of the claim for refund did not require any interference by this Court. 5. Before us it is the submission of Sri. Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge was not correct in law in affirming the order of the Principal Commissioner, which had gone into the merits of the claim for refund when the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act was merely for condonation of delay in preferring the said refund claim. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department that the Principal Commissioner could not have been faulted for mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlooked the fact that in respect of the same land, the assessee had, in 2006, obtained refund of the tax deducted at source (Ext.P4) from the initial compensation amounts awarded to him for acquisition of his land. The present refund claim preferred by the appellant, whose late husband was the earlier assessee, is in respect of the tax deducted at source from the enhanced compensation amount pertaining to the same land. When the earlier refund was found admissible by considering the land in question as agricultural land, we fail to see how the very same land can cease to be agricultural land when it comes to a claim for refund of the tax deducted at source from the enhanced compensation amount paid to the assessee. At any rate, we feel that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
