Condonation of delay discretion upheld where the Board retained jurisdiction and acted on the relevant report

The Board retained jurisdiction to decide condonation of delay applications under section 119(2)(b) where the record did not show any transfer divesting that power. Belated rectification applications under section 154 required condonation, and the Chief Commissioner's forwarding of the Commissioner's report did not by itself amount to a transfer of proceedings. The Board's refusal to condone the delay was made after considering the relevant report and was not arbitrary. The challenge to the refusal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Board had jurisdiction to decide the applications for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether its refusal to condone the delay was arbitrary.

Analysis: The applications for rectification under section 154 were belated, and condonation was sought under section 119(2)(b). The record showed that the Chief Commissioner at Bangalore merely forwarded the report of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, and there was nothing to show that the proceedings had been transferred so as to divest the Board of jurisdiction. The power to condone delay lay within the Board's discretion, and the refusal was made after considering the relevant report.

Conclusion: The Board retained jurisdiction and its refusal to condone the delay was not arbitrary. The challenge failed.

---