TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petition dismissed for almost five-year delay; condonation refused and s.119(2)(b) compliance bars relief for refunds over fourteen years</h1> HC refused to entertain the petition and rejected the application for condonation of delay to file a revised return. The court noted it had limited ... Application for condonation of delay to file a revised return is rejected - HELD THAT:- This court did not address any of the objections and confined the writ petition to the grievance that the application u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act could not be disposed of. Accordingly, this court directed the respondent to decide the applications filed by the petitioner as well as the persons who are petitioners in other connected matters within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law. The impugned order was passed pursuant to the said directions; however, it is noted that the petitioner had not taken any steps to challenge the said order to file the present petition. We do not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition in view of the inordinate delay which is almost five years from the date on which the impugned order was passed. We are also considering that the petitioner’s case is for seeking refund of the tax that was paid in the AYs 2007-08 to 2010-11 which is more than fourteen years from date. W.P.(C) 6477/2025 challenges the PCIT order dated 24.09.2020 rejecting condonation of delay to file a revised return seeking refund of tax paid on interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for AYs 2007-08 to 2010-11. Petitioner filed representations (23.01.2016) and separate applications under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act (22.04.2016); a hearing occurred on 02.09.2019 but the Section 119(2)(b) applications were not decided. Earlier writ (WP(C) 4489/2020) was disposed directing respondent to decide such applications within eight weeks. Revenue relied on limitation under Circular dated 09.06.2015; the earlier disposal did not address that objection. The impugned order was passed pursuant to the court's directions; petitioner delayed nearly five years in challenging it, and the refund claim relates to assessments over fourteen years old. Petition dismissed, the court noting the 'inordinate delay' and the antiquity of the AYs involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
