Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2020 (8) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'Act') seeking to condone the delay in filing return of income as well as refund claim with respect to the assessment year in question, which was rejected by the second respondent on 28.04.2011. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a review application, which was dismissed by the second respondent, vide order dated 17.10.2011. However, a liberty was given to the petitioner to file appeal before the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi. Accordingly, the petitioner went on appeal before the first respondent / CBDT, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 17.04.2012. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition to quash the said ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5.The factual matrix of the case as narrated above is not in dispute. The petitioner filed application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the second respondent seeking condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 and requesting to allow the refund claim of Rs. 1,40,777/-. Vide order dated 28.04.2011, the second respondent rejected the said application, stating that the petitioner being an assessee, is expected to be aware of the statutory requirements of filing the voluntary return u/s.139(1) or even within the extended period u/s.139(4) particularly when a refund is due to him and hence, the application for co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....standing counsel made her submission supporting the order impugned herein. 8.Before deciding the issue involved herein, it is worth referring to Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which reads as under: "Section 119(2)(b) - The Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorize (any income-tax authority, not being a Commissioner (Appeals)) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law;" 9.It is also appropriate t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the matter goes to the Assessing Officer for considering the assessee's claim for refund under section 237. Section 237 makes it clear that the Assessing Officer while considering application for refund should consider the amount of tax chargeable on the claimant under the Act and refund arises only if the payment is in excess of the tax payable under the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer has powers of assessment under section 237 while considering an application for refund. Refund is payable only if it is in excess of tax and other amounts payable under the Act. In other words, an assessee who escapes assessment invites assessment if an application for refund is made under section 237." ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....planation from the petitioner as to why the TDS certificates were not collected in time; and ill-health was a subsequent event for not taking up the contract work afresh and hence, the petition for condonation of delay was not acceptable. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a review before the second respondent, before whom, he furnished explanation for not collecting the TDS certificates from the concerned NGO, that the TDS certificates sent by the NGO named Sneha were not delivered to the petitioner as he was handling Tsunami projects at various locations throughout the State and after completion of the same, he went to USA to help her daughter for delivery. Though the petitioner has explained the delay and substantiated their genu....