2019 (9) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2017 in F.No.225/116/2011/ITA.II (Annexure- 'F'). (b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the Order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 264 of the Act Dt: 21.07.2006 in LRP No. 12/264/CIT-I/05-06 (Annexure-'B1'): (c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to enter the application under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act and condone the delay of two days in making the investment in a specified bond under the provisions of Section 54 EC of the Act. (d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus for Central Board of Direct Taxes- First Respondent for giving instructions to the Assessing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order cannot be revised as there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to condone the delay in making any investment in specified bonds as per the provisions of Section 54(EC). 4. When things stood thus, petitioner accepted the decision of the Commissioner dated 21.07.2006. After more than 5 years from the date of Commissioner's order dated 21.07.2006, petitioner submitted an application to the CBDT on 24.05.2011 while invoking Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 119 of Income Tax Act seeking for condonation of delay and for appropriate direction to the authorities who are under CBDT. During pendency of the petitioner's application before CBDT, authority by its order dated 24.05.2011 invoking Section 119 of the Income Tax Act i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion on the score that there is delay with reference to circular dated 09.06.2015. Petitioner's claim - application is dated 24.05.2011. Therefore, whatever existed as on 24.05.2011 is required to be taken into consideration. Therefore, circular dated 09.06.2015 which has been referred by the CBDT has no application. 7. In support of the petitioner's claim, learned counsel relied on 3 decisions: (1) C.A.6850/2018 disposed of on 20.07.2018 - PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 & ORS vs M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. on the issue of circular. That the administrative circular will not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner since it is a quasi judicial authority. (2) DR. (SMT.) SUJATHA RAMESH vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIR....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....herein approached the CBDT on 26.11.2014. Thus, there was no delay in approaching CBDT by the petitioner therein. In the case of Dr.Sudha K M supra, matter relates to refund of TDS amount. Thus, the cited decisions has no application to the petitioner's case.   11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 12. Crux of the matter in the present petition is, "Whether communication dated 13.12.2017 (Annexure 'F') is in terms of Section 119(2)(b) read with Circular dated 09.06.2015 or not?" 13. The petitioner's application before CBDT could be entertained only in terms of Circular dated 09.06.2015. Paras 3 and 8 reads as under: "3. No condonation application for claim of refund/loss shall be entertained beyond s....