2014 (11) TMI 183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....H, S.C JUDGEMENT The petitioner is aggrieved with the non acceptance of the returns and the rejection of the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The subject assessment years are 2006-07 and 2008-09. The petitioner, a Co-operative Society failed to file the returns within the time provided ie., within the due date, which is on the 30....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocieties. Herein, the contention raised on behalf of the Union of India is that, the delay is attributable to the petitioner itself and not solely on the department of the State Government. 3. The admitted case is that for both the years, the audit certificates were received respectively on 10.05.2010 and 06.05.2011. The returns were filed for the respective years on 13.01.2011 and 11.11.2011. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in that case was not attributable to the assessee therein. The hardship contemplated under Section 119(2)(b) was also found in favour of the assessee since huge amounts were due as refund and the assessee had been reeling under heavy loss for very many years. The learned Single Judge categorically found that to consider belated return for refund, necessarily the delay has to be condoned under Sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntention on the basis of Section 44 AB; for the assessment year 2008-09 the petitioner notices in Ext.P1(a) application the proviso to sub-clause(d) of Section 44 AB. The said proviso exempts any person required to get his accounts audited by any other law from subjecting itself to another audit as mandated in the provision. The contentions raised are conflicting and in the totality of circumstanc....