1983 (12) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oners for the purpose of income-tax is the calendar year, i.e., ending on December 31 of each year. Section 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961, provides that where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from a new industrial undertaking, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the said section, be allowed in computing the total income of the assessee a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount calculated at the rate of 6% per annum on the capital employed in the industrial undertaking in respect of the previous year relevant to the assessment year. The petitioners claim that at the relevant time they were not aware of the provisions of s. 80J of the I.T. Act and, therefore, f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sub-s. (2)(b) of s. 119 of the Act reads as under " 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, authorise the Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer 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. " Shri Dastur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners filed applications requesting the Central Board of Revenue to exercise the powers under sub-s. (2)(b) of s. 119 and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dvised the assessee to claim deductions cannot be entertained. Shri Joshi submits that the Board while rejecting the claim must have come to the conclusion that it is not desirable or expedient to reopen the assessment and the claim of the petitioners that this is a case of genuine hardship should not be accepted. Shri Joshi also urged that it is not possible for the Board to exercise the powers under sub-s. (2)(b) of s. 119 and issue directions in every case. In my judgment, the submission of Shri Joshi that it cannot be laid down as a rule that the Board must give personal hearing to every assessee who makes an application seeking directions to the ITO or the Board should pass a reasoned order in every case is correct. But, on the fact....