2023 (10) TMI 1323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: The appellant had approached this Court through the writ petition aforementioned impugning the order dated 26.5.2017 of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, whereby an application preferred by the appellant under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') was rejected. It would appear that the appellant had filed a return of income for the assessment year 2012-2013 on 19.8.2015, showing 'nil' total income. The due date for filing the return was 31.7.2012 and the return was filed belatedly, since it was basically a return filed by the appellant on behalf of her late husband who had received compensation amount for the land ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e on which a 'nil' return was actually filed seeking a refund of the TDS amount in question. The application under Section 119 (2)(b) came to be considered by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, who, by the order dated 26.5.2017 impugned in the writ petition, rejected the application inter alia on the ground that the appellant had not established that the land in question was agricultural and further, had not produced clear evidence of the fulfillment of the conditions specified under Section 10(37)(ii) of the Act. As already noticed, this order of the Principal Commissioner was impugned by the appellant in the writ petition wherein the contention taken was that the Principal Commissioner had travelled beyond the powers confer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t was merely for condonation of delay in preferring the said refund claim. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department that the Principal Commissioner could not have been faulted for merely following the circular aforementioned while exercising his discretion in terms of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Krishnamoorthy that Section 119(2)(b) only empowers the Board to admit an application or claim for exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under the Act, after the expiry of the period specified by or under the Act for making such appl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd in question as agricultural land, we fail to see how the very same land can cease to be agricultural land when it comes to a claim for refund of the tax deducted at source from the enhanced compensation amount paid to the assessee. At any rate, we feel that the issue on merits is something that has to be considered by the assessing authority to whom the matter must necessarily be relegated if the Principal Commissioner finds that there are justifiable reasons offered by the appellant for the delay in preferring the claim for refund. Since a decision on the merits of the delay condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) has not been taken by the Principal Commissioner, we are compelled to remit this matter to the said authority for f....