2011 (11) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to 2001-02 (total 4 in number) failed to file returns of the income accrued on leasing out the premises to State Bank of Travancore. The returns were filed belated in the year 2005 and was later supported by an application for condonation of delay under Section 190(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act (for short IT Act) in the year 2006, after the expiry of about an year, from the date of filing of return of income. The petitioners contend that all of them were abroad and one another co-owner residing in India was managing the affairs of the building. They further contend that the said person who was managing their affairs fell sick in the year 2002 and after prolonged illness succumbed to death in the year 2004. The application for condonation of d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on made by the revenue in that context appears to be correct. What remains is to examine Whether under Section 119(2)(b), the petitioners were entitled to the reliefs sought for. Section 119(2)(b) speaks of the powers of the Board(at the relevant time delegated to the Commissioner) by which genuine hardship can be avoided in any case or class of cases, to admit an application for claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief after expiry of the period specified by or under the Act. The counsel for the petitioner would place heavy reliance on the interpretation given to the said section by this Court reported in Pala Marketing Co.-op. Society Ltd. v. Union of India [2008] 167 Taxman 238/[2009] 311 ITR 177. Interpreting Secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ance of TDS certificates. The first ground stated is that death of the co-owner who had been dealing with the affairs of the lease and who was collecting the rent. The assessment years in question were 1998-99 to 2001-02 and even on the showing of the petitioners the death of the co-owner who was handling the lease was in the year 2004. The further contention in the writ petition that he had been ailing for two years prior to that, also cannot be a reason since the previous year of the last assessment year involved was 2000-01. The second ground projected is that the break up of the amounts were not given by the Bank and hence each of the co-owners could not file separate returns for the periods in dispute. The separate share of each co-own....