TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (4) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with Techni Link Ltd., Martins Chambers, Channel Islands, by the petitioner under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act and consequential relief by the second and third respondents. In support of their writ petition, the petitioner-company have filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and prayed that the writ petition may be ordered as prayed for. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents they placed their arguments before this court. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit together with the relevant material documents available on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the 1st day of October of the assessment year in relation to which the approval is first sought. That being so, it is the case of the petitioner herein that though the application for approval was signed by the managing director on July 17, 1987, and despatched on July 21, 1987, it was received by the second respondent only on December 29, 1987. The petitioner also states that he filed the returns of income with the third respondent herein claiming deduction under section 80-O of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the third respondent by order dated May 31, 1988, refused to grant relief under section 80-O on the ground that the second respondent had not approved the agreement. In the meanwhile, the second respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order on the ground that it is contrary to law, arbitrary, unreasonable and not a proper exercise of powers vested in it for the reason that the second respondent has enough power to condone the delay, under section 119 of the Act. It is significant to note that the Board is an income-tax authority within the meaning of section 119(2)(b) and in order to avoid genuine hardship the Board can admit an application for deduction, under the Act. Therefore, the petitioner submits that even in its representation it has made it clear about its genuine hardship which was not disputed and under the Act, the Board is given all the powers. Therefore, it is the categoric contention of the petitioner herei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d respondent cannot deny the benefit under section 80-O of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner strongly contends that under section 80-O it is sufficient if the second respondent grants approval in any assessment year. Here the second respondent granted approval in the year 1988-89 and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of section 80-O in respect of the amount received under the agreement dated June 11, 1985. Further, in support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the following two decisions : 1. Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 81 (SC), 86 and 2. H. S. Anantharamaiah v. CBDT [1993] 201 ITR 526 (Kar). In the first decision cited, i.e., in Continental Construction L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t cannot restrict or enlarge the scope of the relief that can be granted under the section. The assessment years for which relief is available, the extent of the receipts that qualify for deduction and all other incidents flow from the language of the section." Now coming to the second decision relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., H. S. Anantharamaiah v. CBDT [1993] 201 ITR 526, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held as follows: "Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, enables or empowers the Board to admit an application or a claim or return filed after the expiry of the period specified, for avoiding genuine hardship caused in any case or class of cases. Thus, the st....