Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (1) TMI 1130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ies. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 23 February 2024, which is signed by Mr Virender Singh, Additional CIT (ITA Cell), CBDT, New Delhi, refusing to condone the delay of about 1585 days in filing a revised return under Section 139 (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act") for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 4. The impugned order has been made by quoting Section 119 (2) (b) of the IT Act, which empowers the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT") to condone such delay to avoid genuine hardship to the assesses. 5. Mr Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the impugned order was neithe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ys and the cause shown was by no means sufficient. He submitted that repeated filing of rectification applications does not constitute any sufficient cause to explain the inordinate delay of 1585 days. 9. Mr. Gulabani submitted that the impugned order has been made by following the standard procedures prescribed. He submitted that the order notes that it was issued with the approval of the Member (IT), CBDT. He submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner, to which the Petitioner responded. He submitted that no personal hearing was sought in this matter. Accordingly, he submitted that there was no breach of the principles of natural justice or fair play. 10. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 11. Fro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Board are processed in the office of the concerned Member after proper consideration of facts and circumstances of each case. The work relating to the Order under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on matters related to Sections 10, 11, 12 & 13 have been assigned to Member (IT) in CBDT. The orders in these cases are approved by Member concerned and after approval; these orders are issued with the signature of the officer, who is not below the rank of Under Secretary to Govt. of India, in the office of the Member. Considering the extant office procedure and practices being followed, the Addl. CIT(ITA Cell) has signed the order after taking approval of the Member concerned In last para of the Order, it has been clearly mentioned tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 9th June 2015 issued by CBDT, application/claim for amount exceeding Rs.50 lakhs shall be considered by the Board. We say this because the last sentence in the impugned order dated 24th December 2020 reads; "This order is passed with the approval of the Member (TPS & Systems), CBDT." There is nothing to indicate that Board has considered petitioner's application. We also find that copy of the impugned order dated 24th December 2020 is sent to, (a) the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, (b) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-21, Mumbai, (c) Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell, Bengaluru, (d) the applicant and (e) the Guard File but it is not sent to the Member on whose approval the said order is suppose .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ss a reasoned order. 20. This direction for a personal hearing is issued, having regard to the peculiar facts of the present case, which the Petitioner could better explain through a personal hearing. Even otherwise, the impugned order refusing to condone the delay visits the Petitioner with serious civil consequences. Such an order should generally be made after compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play. The fact that Section 119 (2) does not explicitly refer to any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing is not grounds for noncompliance with principles of natural justice. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, such principles should be read into the unoccupied interstices of a statute. 21. The impugned or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates