TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside order dated May 17, 2000 passed by the Member, Central Board of Direct Taxes, by which the claim made by the petitioner for refund under section 237 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is rejected. The petitioner has further prayed to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to give refund of Rs.19,805 and Rs.32,206 to the petitioner with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum from the date of payment by the petitioner to the date of refund to the petitioner. The petitioner is a limited company. It had filed belated returns for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 on April 20, 1994. According to the petitioner, the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner submitted that rejection of the refund claim of the petitioner is absolutely bad in law because the petitioner without doubt has fulfilled the conditions laid down in Circular F.No. 225/208/93ITA-II dated October 12, 1993, and the claim for refund could not have been rejected on the ground that a case of genuine hardship was not made out by the petitioner. Learned counsel pleaded that the claim for refund ought to have been entertained and accepted in view of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which enables the Board to authorise a competent authority to admit an application or claim for refund made after the expiry of the period of limitation. What was emphasized by learned counsel for the petitioner was that in view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advised him to take complete bed rest for about three months. As per the averments made in the application dated October 1, 1999, the principal officer of the petitioner-company had taken treatment for tuberculosis which lasted for about seven to eight months. It is also clear from the averments made in the said application that around April, 1992, again the principal officer of the company had fallen sick and the doctor had diagnosed the disease to be typhoid and he was once again tied down to the bed. As there was no one to look after taxation matters of the company, the returns could not be filed in time in which refund was claimed. Section 119(2)(b) of the Act empowers the Board to authorise any income-tax authority not being Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avoid return of the amounts. Section 119 of the Act vests ample power in the Board to render justice in such a situation. The Board has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the petitioner's request for refund." Applying the principles laid down by the Madras High Court in the abovereferred to decision to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the Board was not justified in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground that a case of genuine hardship was not made out by the petitioner and delay in claiming the relief was not satisfactorily explained, more particularly when the returns could not be filed in time due to the ill health of the officer who was looking after the taxation matters of the petitioner. In view of the provisions ....