9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenges the order dated 24 January 2024, which dismissed the Petitioner's application for condonation of a delay of around 10 months in filing the return of income for the assessment year 2020-2021. 4. Ms. Jain submits that the impugned order in this case has been made by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (OSD) (OT & WT) "with the approval of competent authority". She submits that the power to consider and dispose of an application for condonation of delay is vested in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under the provisions of Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the IT Act"). She submits that the impugned order is neither by CBDT nor any of its members. There is no clarity about which competent authority ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... habitual defaulter when it comes to filing the return of income. For all these reasons, Mr. Narayanan submits that this petition may be dismissed. 7. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 8. As noted earlier, the impugned order has been signed by the Additional CIT (OSD) (OT & WT). The last line states that it was passed "with the approval of competent authority." 9. The affidavit does not throw much light on the status of competent authority approving the making of this order by the Additional CIT (OSD) (OT & WT). In any event, this Court had to interfere with similar orders made by officers who neither had any authorisation from the CBDT to make such orders nor any authorisation from CBDT members. This is assuming that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbers. All the Members of the CBDT are the Special Secretaries to the Govt. of India and have office for processing all the matters dealt by them. Applications/petitions u/s 119 (2) (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 received in 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 Memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce 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 supposed to have been passed. In our view, this means the Member has not passed the order but has been passed by the Director. On this ground alone, this or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
