TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,06,160/- and claiming refund of an amount of Rs. 670/-. On processing the return submitted by him, the respondents refunded the said amount to him. It would appear that a property owned by the petitioner was acquired by the 2nd respondent and an amount of Rs. 46,39,856/- was paid to the petitioner, after deducting an amount of Rs. 9,28,642/- towards TDS. The 2nd respondent had deducted the tax at source while making payment towards compensation to the petitioner in respect of the land compulsorily acquired from him. The petitioner, therefore, revised his return for the assessment year 2014-2015 through Ext.P2 revised return filed on 11.05.2015. On coming to know that the revised return filed by him would not be considered by the responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner, my attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in Pala Marketing Co-operative Society Limited v. Union of India and Others [2008 (1) KHC 637], wherein on the aspect of condonation of delay, it was held by this Court that the Board should condone the delay if failure to condone the delay causes genuine hardship to the assessee no matter whether the delay in filing the return is meticulously explained or not. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that Ext.P9 order of the 4th respondent cannot be legally sustained. At the outset, I find that as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rejection of the delay condonation application preferred by the petitioner. 6. It is not in dispute that the assessment of the petitioner for the said year (2014-2015) is yet to be completed. The delay that the petitioner sought to get condoned was only 42 days. Through Ext.P2 revised return, the petitioner had in fact brought to the notice of the Department, the details of tax that had been deducted at source from amounts received by the petitioner by way of compensation for land acquired from him during the previous year relevant to the assessment year. Even if the petitioner had not filed a revised return, I am of the view that the assessing authority cannot ignore the fact of deduction of tax at source, from payments made to the petit....