TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred to as the 'Act') for condonation of delay in filing returns and claiming refund for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax through Ext.P6 order dated 12.4.2021. The petitioner seeks a mandamus commanding the respondents to process the return of income filed by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 and grant to the petitioner the refund of Rs.1,33,470/- claimed by him. 2. The brief facts of the case show that the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Act, did not file his return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 within the time specified under Section 139 of the Act. The due date for filing of return, as far as the petitioner is concerned, for the Assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ads as under:- Shri. Antony Kaithackal Chacko, the applicant filed a petition before the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-I on 20-01-2021 requesting for condonation of delay in filing return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The report on the condonation petition was submitted by Jurisdictional assessing officer the ITO, Ward-I, Kottayam which was forwarded by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I Kottayam, along with his remarks. 3. The application for condonation and report submitted by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer have been perused and found that the assessee has submitted this application for condonation of delay in filing of return for AY 2010-11 after 9 years. As per CBDT Cir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Ext.P6 order, it is open to this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to condone the delay, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Mr. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department refers to the statement filed in this Court on behalf of the respondents and states that Ext.P6 order is completely justified. It is submitted that Ext.P6 order does not suffer from any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Depart....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return of income beyond the period specified in Section 139 of the Act, on 13.7.2012. Ext.P6 proceeds on the basis that the application for condonation of delay ought to be rejected as 'the application' was filed beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year and, therefore, in terms of the Circular of the Board bearing No.9/2015, the application cannot be considered. 6. I am of the view that the 1st respondent completely misdirected himself in law while holding that Ext.P5 application of the petitioner for condonation of delay ought to be rejected as it was filed beyond the period specified in the Circular of the Board, referred to above. It cannot be disputed and it is clear from a reading of the p....