AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income which could not be filed within the time prescribed under sub­section (1) of Section 139 of the said Act. In the said application, in paragraphs­ 2 and 3, the petitioner has stated thus: "2. Facts of the Tragedy are as under: My elder brother Kevalchand Jain (Sonigara) had gone to Palithana in Gujarat on pilgrimage, with his family relatives. When they were returning to Ahmedabad from Palithana on way back home by road, the tourist vehicle (Toyota Qualis) in which they were travelling was swept away as the driver of the tourist vehicle made a blunder of driving through the flooded bridge without railings on river Rangholi near village Ghanghli District Bhavnagar. The car swept away in the river by the force of the flooded river and only driver and one person out of the 7 passengers in the car could saved by rescue team as they were handing to trees on an island in the river Rangholi. The unfortunate accident happened at about 9.30 am on 25/09/2007. On hearing about about the unfortunate accident I rushed to the accident spot the same evening. The force of the flood water was such that the tourist vehicle could be lifted out of the river only after three days and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner invoked powers both under clauses (b) and (c) of sub­section (2) of section 119 of the said Act. The said application was made by the petitioner on 4th January 2010. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. The application has been rejected on the ground that though show­cause­notice based on the said application was issued to the petitioner and personal hearing was granted, no satisfactory answer could be given by the petitioner. The second ground on which the application is rejected is that clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 119 cannot be applied as the said section does not permit relaxation on any requirement of a any section, particularly section 80AC of the said Act. The third reason given is that though the claim of the petitioner was that he was busy in searching his brother and, therefore, return of income could not be filed within the stipulated time, during the relevant period, the total income of business of the petitioner grew from Rs. 1,35,73,197/­ to Rs. 1,46,46,720/­. It was observed that this figure shows that the business activities of the petitioner were continued and were not adversely affected due to unfortu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 119 ­ Instructions to subordinate authorities. (1) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, - (a) the Board may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and collection of revenue, issue, from time to time (whether by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of sections [115P, 115S, 115WD, 115WE, 115WF, 115WG, 115WH, 115WJ, 115WK;] 139, 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155 [158BFA], sub­section (1A) of section 201, sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C, [234E], [270A], 271 [271C, 271CA] and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes or fringe benefits or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures to be followed by other income­tax authorities in the work relating to assessment or collection of revenue or the initiation of proceedings for the imposition of penalties and any such order may, if the Board is of opinion that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, be publis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified under sub­section (1) of section 139. Thus, filing of return within the date specified under sub­section (1) of section 139 is a condition precedent for claiming a deduction under section 80IB of the said Act. Unless the condition precedent is fulfilled, the petitioner cannot claim deduction. The power under clause (b) is of granting extension of time to file return. Even if the said power is exercised, the condition precedent for claiming deduction under section 80IB is not satisfied. The clause (b) does not permit relaxation of the time provided under sub­section (1) of Section 139 of the said Act. The emphasis is on filing the return before a date fixed by Statute. Therefore, clause (b) of sub­section (2) of section 119 will not help the petitioner. 7. Careful perusal of clause (c) shows that a power is vested in the Board to relax any requirement contained in any of the provisions of Chapter IV or Chapter VI­A, where the assessee has failed to comply with any requirement specified in such provision for claiming deduction thereunder. The power can be exercised by the Board, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardshi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....methods were adopted like putting banners on the highway, dhabas and transport offices as well as publishing advertisement in the local newspapers. All efforts were made and, ultimately, in the first week of November 2007, the competent authority issued a death certificate showing that the petitioner's brother was dead. However, his case is that he still continued his efforts to find out belongings or remains of his brother till January/February 2008 when the river dried. However, nothing could be recovered. In the impugned order, these factual aspects have not been disbelieved or discarded. However, what is set out in paragraph­ 3 of the application is not considered while passing the impugned order. It is stated that as the petitioner was busy till January/February 2008, the audit under section 44AB was delayed and, ultimately, it could be completed only on 20th February 2008. Within few days after completion of the audit, the return was filed by the petitioner. In the impugned the order, the Board has observed that the presence of the petitioner for audit was not required. This observation is factually incorrect. The presence of the petitioner was necessary for answering....