TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred to as "the said Act"), whereby a prayer had been made for condoning the delay of one day in filing the return of income in respect of the assessment year 2004-05. 2. It is an admitted position that the due date for filing of the return was 01.11.2004. The return was, in fact, filed on 02.11.2004. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's representative reached the Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate around 5.15 p.m. on 01.11.2004 for the purposes of filing the said return of income. However, he was sent from one room to the other and by the time he reached room No.398-F, where his return was said to be accepted, it was already 6.00 p.m. and he was told that the return would not be accepted because the counter had been clo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the ground that the return had been filed late and there was no order under Section 119 of the said Act by the CBDT condoning the delay. The Commissioner of Income-tax observed that, although the assessee had contended that an application had been filed before the CBDT for condonation of the delay, no order under Section 119 of the said Act had been received till date. Subsequently, on 29.10.2009, the order of the CBDT on the petitioner's application under Section 119 for condonation of delay in filing of the return under Section 139(1)/139(3) of the said Act in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 was communicated to the petitioner. The order is a non-speaking one and it merely states as under:- "After careful examination of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en by the board was that Section 119 (2)(b) speaks of an "application" or a "claim" and not a "return" to be filed beyond time. Consequently, the board did not accede to the request of the petitioner for condoning the delay. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Associated Electro Ceramics (supra) examined the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that though the claim of carry forward of loss in the case of a loss return was not a claim regarding exemption, determination or refund referred to in Section 119 (2)(b), it was definitely relatable to a claim arising under the category of any other relief available under the Act, as indicated in the said provision itself. The court also held that the contention of the department that if ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id Act in a case having a claim of carry forward of losses. The said circular dated 16.05.2001 further clarified that the delay in making a refund claim as well as a claim of carry forward of losses, both could be condoned in cases where the returned income is a loss provided the other conditions are satisfied. 7. In view of the foregoing, it is absolutely clear that the submissions sought to be raised before us by the learned counsel for the respondent have specifically and categorically been rejected by the Karnataka High Court and the same have been accepted not only by the Board, but also by the Ministry of Law. We notice that a similar view has also been taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani v. Director G....