9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under: "6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure A dated 05.07.2018 passed by the 1st respondent is hereby quashed. (iii) The delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the revised returns for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 claiming refund from the respondents is hereby condoned. (iv) Respondents are directed to consider the claim for refund with applicable interest if any, as sought for by the petitioner in Annexures - J and K dated 25.07.2016 and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 2. Some of the facts which need to be noted are, that the respondent is an individual Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was, that he is entitled to the condonation of delay in filing the revised return dated 25.07.2016 and with a further prayer to grant refund of excess tax of Rs. 24,83,851/- with interest. 4. The case of the appellant-Revenue before the learned Single Judge was, by relying upon a circular dated 22.12.2006 wherein clause-4 states that, no fresh application for claim of refund will be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which the application/claim is made. 5. The learned Single Judge has, in paragraph No.5, stated as under: "5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the aforesaid judgments in A. Balakrishnan's case and Gopalan Thyagarajan's case supra, coup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf had delayed the claim of refund, he would not be entitled to the interest as directed to be given by the learned Single Judge. He also stated that, the first letter written by the respondent was only on 10.02.2011 followed by the letter dated 06.08.2013 though the assessment was carried out in the year 2010. He has stated that, the respondent-Assessee had filed a rectification application before the Central Processing Centre (CPC) on 10.02.2011, wherein he had stated that, the reason for not being able to file a revised return was due to limitation in filing a revised return. In support of his submissions, he has referred to the provisions of Section 139 (5) of the Act. He stated, as per Section 139 (5) of the Act, it is clear that if a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorise any income-tax authority, not being a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law;" Even this provision was not acted upon by the respondent before 31.03.2015. He did state that, while rejecting the application under Section 119 (2) (b), the Commissioner of Income Tax did say that, the case is genuine and the refund claim has arisen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have directed the appellants to consider the claim of the respondent for refund with applicable interest, if any? 9. The plea of Sri. Dilip is primarily with regard to direction given by the learned Single Judge for considering the claim with applicable interest. According to Sri. Dilip, the direction in respect of interest would be inequitable in the facts when the respondent was clearly at fault in not filing the revised return in time. Though he do concede that the respondent had sent communications dated 10.02.2011 and 07.08.2013 for revision and refund of excess tax, but the respondent had not filed his revised return which is a pre-requisite for seeking the refund. This plea of Sri. Dilip was tried to be justified by Sri. Kumar by s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in that sense, the respondent could not have filed application seeking condonation of delay after 31.03.2015. The application having been filed only on 25.07.2016, which is beyond the time of limitation as prescribed by the above instruction No.13/2006, the communication dated 05.07.2018, which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition is justified. Surely in the facts, the respondent cannot be given the benefit of his own wrong though the claim for refund even if genuine and bonafide, but surely the direction for grant of applicable interest, if any, could not have been directed. This is for the reason, the interest is payable for the delay attributed to the opposite party. In this case, despite the instruction dated 22.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
