TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... heard finally. 3. In this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) and to allow the application submitted by the petitioner dated13.10.2016 for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15. 4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that in the financial year 2012-13, there was a change in the majority shareholding of the petitioner. Subsequently, there were several disputes between the erstwhile management of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard of Direct Taxes, by impugned order dated 16.01.2018, examined the return on merits and inter alia held that the delay in filing the return of income was on account of extraordinary factors. It was further held that the reluctance of tax auditor to verify the veracity and correctness of the claim of the petitioner and the impact of differences and incorrectness in claim, has created a serious doubt on the correctness of claim made by the assessee in its return of income. In view of condition laid down in para 5(i) of the Circular No.9/2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the claim of the petitioner for condonation of delay is not admissible. Accordingly, it was rejected. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exercised in a clear manner by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and therefore, no interference is called for, for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of 'SHARAVATHY CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2' (2017) 87 TAXMAN.COM 244 (KARNATAKA). 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Section 119(2)(b) of the Act empowers the Board to condone the delay for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases by general or special order. The express....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim of petitioner and the impact of differences and incorrectness in claim, as discussed above has created a serious doubt on the correctness of claim made by the assessee in its return of income. In view of condition laid down in para 5(i) of CBDT circular No.9/2015 dated 9th June, 2015, as discussed above, the claim of petitioner for condonation of delay is not admissible and hence stands rejected." 11. Thus, from perusal of paragraph 10 of the impugned order, it is evident that it is cryptic and while deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the claim of the petitioner has been dealt with on merits. It is also pertinent to mention that the circular dated 09.06.2015 does not apply in cases of ....