9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act and summarily rejected the application without ascribing any reasons or rationale. There is no element of any reasoning, rationale or discussion by the PCIT before arriving at the conclusion that the case of assessee does not fall under the ambit of genuine hardship. Therefore, the reasons ascribed in the counter affidavit merit no consideration as the impugned order before us does not allude to any rationale before deciding the condonation of delay application filed under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act. It is quintessential to understand that the PCIT while exercising the powers under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act acts like a quasi-judicial body and is bestowed with the cardinal responsibility to pass a reasoned order. Thus, an order passed under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act which is devoid of any reasoning or rationale would be de hors the legislative mandate prescribed under the beneficial scheme of Section 119 of the Act. It is strikingly clear that the impugned order is passed in a pedantic manner without any application of mind as the order records no reasons before summarily rejecting the condonation of delay application. Remand the matter back to the desk of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Consequently, on 28 March 2018, while acting on the application filed by the assessee, the PCIT passed an order, thereby rejecting the condonation of delay application in filing the ITR on the score that the case of the assessee does not fall under the ambit of genuine hardship as per the Central Board of Direct Taxes ["CBDT"] Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09 June 2015. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Mr. Manish Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the impugned order was passed in a mechanical manner and without due application of mind. He submitted that the impugned order nowhere reflects the reasoning of the PCIT for rejecting the application. He further argued that the PCIT never raised any objection with respect to the correctness and genuineness of the claim of TDS. Furthermore, he submitted that impugned order is contrary to the legislative mandate of Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act. 9. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the assessee. He argued that the case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ructions and directions to other Income Tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board: Provided that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued-- (a) so as to require any Income Tax authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; or (b) so as to interfere with the discretion of [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals)] in the exercise of his appellate functions. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power,-- (a) the Board may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and collection of revenue, issue, from time to time (whether by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of Sections [115-P, 115-S,] [, 115-WD, 115-WE, 115-WF, 115-WG, 115-WH, 115-WJ, 115-WK] [139,] 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155 [, 158-BFA], [sub-section (1-A) of Section 201, Sections 210, 211, 234-A, 234-B, 234-C, [234 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide objectives of the Act. 16. Furthermore, Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, or refund, in cases of genuine hardship, beyond the statutory limitation prescribed under the Act and consequently deal with such an application on merits and in accordance with the law. 17. The aforenoted legislative intent behind Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act is also reflected in Clause 5 of the CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09 June 2015, on which the impugned order before us is loosely hinged. The relevant extract of the CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09 June 2015 is reproduced herein below:- "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 following conditions: i. At the time of considering the case under Section 119 (2) (b), it shall be ensured that the income/loss declared and /or refund claimed is correct and genuine and also that the case is of genuine hardship on merits. ii. The Pr.CCIT/CCIT/Pr.CIT/ClT dealing with the case shall be empowered to direct the jurisdictional assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed a speaking order, thereby violating the principle of natural justice is devoid of all merit and is not maintainable in law. 12. That it is respectfully submitted that prior to taking decision on the matter a report was called from the field formations. It is only after examining the report and the submissions of the Petitioner that a decision was arrived at that the Petitioner has not been able to make a case of genuine hardship calling for condonation of delay. Copy of report of the Additional Commissioner is annexed as annexure-R1 13. That it is further respectfully submitted that the powers vested on Authorities under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act has been exercised in fair and reasonable manner after duly considering the facts of the case and the submissions advanced by the assessee. It is submitted that condonation of delay is to be explained and justified by the aggrieved party by cogent and valid reasons and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the present case, the Petitioner has failed to give valid and cogent reasons and substantiate the case of genuine hardship on his part." 21. However, a bare reading of the impugned order would reflect tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
