2018 (5) TMI 1699

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s For The Respondents : Sri K. V. Aravind, Advocate ORDER The petitioner has challenged the communication dated 15.03.2013 and 28.10.2015, at Annexure-D and Annexure-G respectively and the order at Annexure-J dated 16.02.2016 to the writ petition, whereby it has been held that the return filed is defective and the aggregate of shares as filed by the petitioner exceeds 100%, inter alia seeking a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncipal Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section-119(2)(b) of the Act without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would clearly submit that the return filed depicted correct shares aggregating 100%. However, the third respondent rejected the application filed under Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his Court is of the considered opinion that the returns filed by the assessee was wrongly declared by the Income tax Department as invalid return under Section-139(9) of the Act. It is on the advise of the department an application under Section-119(2)(b) was filed to condone the delay in filing the returns. The said application has been rejected by the third respondent without providing an opport....