Delay Condonation and Refund Under s.119(2)(b) Upheld as Revenue's Time-Barred Challenge Fails After Unexplained Lapse SC dismissed the Revenue's Special Leave Petition challenging HC's direction to condone delay in filing returns and grant refund with interest under ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Delay Condonation and Refund Under s.119(2)(b) Upheld as Revenue's Time-Barred Challenge Fails After Unexplained Lapse
SC dismissed the Revenue's Special Leave Petition challenging HC's direction to condone delay in filing returns and grant refund with interest under s.119(2)(b). The SC held there was a gross, unexplained delay of 495 days in filing the SLP and found no ground to interfere with the HC order. Consequently, the HC's quashing of the orders rejecting condonation applications and its direction to condone delay and issue refund with interest from the date of deposit until refund, in parity with similarly situated cases, was affirmed.
There is a "gross delay of 495 days in filing the Special Leave Petition" which "has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner - Revenue." The Court found no merit to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court, noting that even apart from delay there existed "no good ground to interfere" with that order. The Special Leave Petition was therefore "dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits." Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of. The decision rests on procedural lapse (inordinate, unexplained delay) and a merits review that found the High Court's order sustainable.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
