2011 (3) TMI 1335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of delay. According to the petitioner, he had in fact submitted the returns earlier, in the office of the 2nd respondent as evidenced from Ext.P2 and P3, along with the TDS certificates. It is the case of the petitioner that the staff in the office of the 2nd respondent has not accepted those returns since they were filed beyond time. It is stated that, the returns in question were refused only after affixing 'office seal' of the 2nd respondent, which was thereafter scored off. In Ext.P2, copy of the return, it is evident that the 'office seal' was seen affixed and scored off. It is also pointed out that the "acknowledgment receipt number" was also affixed at the bottom of Ext.P2 and subsequently scored off. Under such circumstances, aggr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the power to condone delay under Section 119(2)(b) is vested with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and it is only by virtue of Circular No.13/2006 dt.22.12.2006, the power is delegated to the 1st respondent. Referring to paragraph No.4 of the said circular it was stated that the power delegated to the 1st respondent is limited only for condonation of delay upto a period of 6 years from the end of the assessment year.   4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, inspite of Ext.P7 order, the delay with respect to the year 2003-04 was subsequently condoned, since it was found that the application was within a period of six years. Accordingly the return filed for the said year was accepted and the same ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was accepted at the office of the 2nd respondent, the above said endorsements will reveal that there was an attempt made by the petitioner to submit the return on an earlier occasion. According to me, the above said fact is a matter which need be considered while deciding the issue regarding condonation of delay. Of course, as observed in Ext.P5 Judgment, even computed on that basis, there is delay in filing the return. However, there was no evaluation done with respect to the above said aspects since the 1st respondent was lacking powers. It is the CBDT which is the competent authority to look into these matters and to take an appropriate decision, bearing in mind all the above said aspects. Under such circumstances I am of the view that ....