TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Instructions to subordinate authorities - Authorisation regarding condonation of delay in filing refund claim
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) from file of even number dated 12-10-1993 (see Annex One) and also the Circular Number 670 (Annex Three) of even date from the same file. 2. In this context, I have been directed to draw your attention to Instruction No. 1867, dated 30-11-1990 (see Annex Two) and to inform you that paras 2, 3 and 4 of the said Instruction shall continue to be applicable. The Chief Commissioner/Director Gener­al/Commissioner of Income-tax/Director of Income-tax should not only see that the conditions laid down by the various Circulars of the Board are satisfied, but should also look further into the facts of the case and examine other aspects such as the source of income, whether the income returned is reasonable considering the extent of prof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r; (ii) the returned income is not a loss where the assessee claims the benefit of carry forward of the loss; (iii) the refund claimed is not supplementary in nature, i.e., claim for additional amount of refund after the completion of the original assessment for the same assessment year; and (iv) the income of the assessee is not assessable in the hands of any other person under any of the provisions of the Act. This order will be effective from 1-11-1993. annex two Instruction No. 1867, dated 30-11-1990 1. Reference is invited to the earlier instructi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of claiming refunds of income-tax deducted at source from contract receipts, etc., for rejection as they were not satisfied that the income returned by the said persons was full and true or even reasonable considering the extent of profit disclosed. It was also noticed that such persons were not main­taining any books of account and, therefore, the possibility of purposely delaying the filing of the returns so as to avoid scrutiny by the Department could not be ruled out. Needless to say that such cases were not found to be of genuine hardship. 3. The Board has been accepting such recommendations as it would be against public policy to condone such delays thereby giving an extended time to such assessees to manipulate their account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year the Assessing Officer shall obtain the prior approval of the CIT before entertaining a belated refund claim; and (ii) where the refund exceeds Rs. 10,000 but does not exceed Rs. 1,00,000 for any assessment year the Assessing Officer shall obtain the prior approval of CCIT or DGIT before entertaining a belated refund claim. 3. The CCIT/DGIT/CIT, as the case may be, shall ensure that the conditions laid down under Board's order under section 119(2)(b) referred to above are fulfilled. 4. Where a Chief Commissioner of Income-tax/Director General of Income-tax/Commissioner of Income-tax/Director of Income-tax finds that the four conditions laid down in the order under section 119(2)(b), dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exceed Rs. 1 lakh for any assessment year; (ii) the returned income is not a loss where the assessee claims the benefit of carry forward of the loss; (iii) the refund claimed is not supplementary in nature, i.e., claim for additional amount of refund is made after the completion of the original assessment for the same assessment year; and (iv) the income of the assessee is not assessable in the hands of any other person under any of the provisions of the Act. 3. Subsequently the Karnataka High Court in the case of Associat­ed Electro Ceramics v. Chairman, C....