2024 (12) TMI 1672

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ef facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows: The respondent/writ petitioner had approached the writ court impugning Ext.P6 order dated 12.4.2021 that was passed by the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax rejecting the application filed by the respondent under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). In the said application that was filed in 2020, the respondent had sought to invoke the discretionary power of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act for the purposes of condoning a delay of three months that had been occasioned by him in filing a return for the assessment year 2010-2011 that would have enabled him to claim refund of tax that was lying to h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The writ petition was therefore allowed by quashing Ext.P6, restoring Ext.P5 application and directing the appellant to consider the matter afresh and decide on the aspect as to whether the delay of three months in preferring the return in 2012 could be condoned. The learned Judge further directed that if, in the exercise carried out by the appellants, the respondent/assessee was found entitled to the refund, then, the refund would not carry any interest under Section 244A of the Act for the period of nearly eight years that the petitioner did not pursue his application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The appellants were however directed to pay interest if the refund, on being eventually sanctione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter eight years could not have been faulted. 5. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri. Anish Jose Antony, the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference since the learned Judge has correctly appreciated the statutory provision while holding that the application referred to under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is the application for refund, which in turn is a reference to the belated return filed. 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that, for the reasons that are to follow, this appeal must necessarily succeed. It is not in dispute that the return that was filed by the respondent/assessee claiming refund was belated....