Failure to consider relevant statutory contentions justified remand for fresh consideration of the taxpayer's application.

An order rejecting a statutory request is unsustainable when relevant contentions are not considered on merits. The Karnataka HC held that the authority had not dealt with the petitioner's pleas on condonation of delay, genuine hardship, or the asserted effect of Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 read with the Fourth Schedule, and therefore the rejection could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with rival contentions left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 warranted interference and remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The impugned order did not deal with the petitioner's contentions regarding condonation of delay, claimed genuine hardship, and the asserted effect of Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 read with the Fourth Schedule. Since these matters were not considered on merits, the order could not be sustained and the matter required reconsideration by the authority in accordance with law. The rival contentions were left open.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: An order rejecting a statutory request is liable to be set aside and remitted when relevant contentions are not considered and the matter has not been decided on merits.

---