9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 21st September 2019 appears to be from a template used and though the amount of refund being allowed is Nil, the officer has not bothered to even delete the paragraph that the amount is to be paid to the bank account specified by applicant in his application. The officer, however, has deleted the other portions. Therefore, there has been even non application of mind by respondent no. 2 and on these grounds alone, the impugned order should be set aside. Rejection of the ground of time limitation - no sufficient cause for delay provided - HELD THAT:- Respondent no. 3 could not be blamed because he did not have the power to condone this delay Judicial conscience does not permit to reject this cause shown as bogus particularly in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an appeal before respondent no. 3 who rejected the appeal on the grounds that the appeal ought to have been filed within three months with a provision to extend by one month upon sufficient cause being shown but the appeal was filed about 29 days late and hence, barred by limitation. Respondent no. 3 has noted that he did not have power to extend the time limit after the extendable one month period is over. We would agree with respondent no. 3. 4. Mr. Mishra submitted that if petitioner has not approached this Court within the time prescribed for filing the appeal, this Court could not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. We are inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition. In the affidavit in reply, these facts have been denied. We do not wish to go into this aspect at this time because no assessee, who is entitled to a large sum of Rs. 17,52,468/-, will not submit the further documents called for. 9. We note that the impugned order does not disclose why the refund application has been rejected. Further, the impugned order dated 21st September 2019 appears to be from a template used and though the amount of refund being allowed is Nil, the officer has not bothered to even delete the paragraph that the amount is to be paid to the bank account specified by applicant in his application. The officer, however, has deleted the other portions. Therefore, in our view, there has been even non application of mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no whisper about the merits of the application. 12. In the circumstances, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated 21st September 2019 passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 25th January 2021 passed by respondent no. 3 and issued on 27th January 2021. 13. The matter is remanded to respondent no. 2 for denovo consideration. Petitioner shall submit the deficient documents, which it says it attempted to submit on 18th September 2019 and again on 25th September 2019, within one week of this order being uploaded. Respondent no. 2 shall pass orders on the refund application in accordance with law but before passing any order, shall give a personal hearing to petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast five working days in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
