2023 (11) TMI 1348

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;ble Mr Justice B M Shyam Prasad For the Petitioner : Smt. Radha R., Advocate For the Respondents : Sri.Dilip M., Advocate ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the first respondent's order dated 29.05.2023 in No. ITBA/ COM/F/17/2023-24/1053267375(1) [Annexure-A]. The first respondent by this order has rejected the petitioner's application under Section 119[2][b] of the Income Tax Act, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R before 31.03.2015 but the ITR is filed on 22.08.2015, and because ITR was belated by about five moths i.e., between 31.03.2015 and 22.08.2015, an application is filed on 15.11.2021 under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act for condonation of delay in filing the ITR. 3. Smt. Radha R further submits that the first respondent has reckoned the delay between the date of last date for filing the ITR an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he application is filed and the provisions of Section 119[2][b] of the IT Act would not impose any limitation for the purposes of filing an application for condonation of delay. The High Court of Kerala has opined thus: "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 b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... application for condonation of delay." 5. This Court, in the light of this proposition, which is very persuasive must opine that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the ITR on 22.08.2015 must be restored for consideration in the light of the reasons offered to explain the delay between 31.03.2015 and 22.08.2015 and with the....