2026 (9) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hese writ petitions is similar, there are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner aggrieved by separate order dt.29.01.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent, whereby and where under rejected the application for condonation of delay in claiming refund under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 in relation to the assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16 respectively. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, it had filed income tax returns for the assessment years 2013-14 on 27.09.2014 and in relation to assessment year 2015-16 on 05.09.2016. It is further case of the petitioner that due to the financial difficulties faced by it, the business of the petitioner got wound up. It is further stated that due to health problems of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her any such Form had been filed. It was further stated that as per Circular No.9/2015, dt.09.06.2015, the application for condone of delay cannot be entertained beyond six (06) years from the end of assessment year for which such application has been filed. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appeared for Income Tax Department. 5. Perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the same were passed without application of mind in a mechanical manner as the authority did not deal with the grounds raised in the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. He would further su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eriod of time. A further perusal of the above provision would make it clear that, there is no specific time prescribed for condonation of delay, meaning thereby discretion is given to the 3rd respondent to exercise the same in proper prospective, especially taking into account the difficulties faced by the assessees. 10. Further, the reasoning given by the 3rd respondent, while rejecting the applications of the petitioner do not stand for legal scrutiny inasmuch as the circulars issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes would be binding on the authorities, however the same is not binding on this Court, especially while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the same, fixing the time limit under t....