Condonation u/s 119(2)(b) rejected without enquiry to the reasons for the delay and the justification given, only on the ground that the business was continuously running was without proper consideration-High Court
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2238 (2018) (03) HC
The petitioner by the instant writ petition had challenged the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting an application for condonation in filing of returns of income and claim of refund for four assessment years.
CBDT vide Circular No. 9/2015 fixed time limit to deal with the applications for condonation of delay in filing returns claiming refund and returns claiming carry forward of loss and set-off and prescribed guidelines for dealing with such application for condonation of delay.
The Petitioner contended that the rejection was made without proper consideration and taking note of the requirement of the CBDT Circular, his application has been rejected without application of mind and without discussing any reason.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner filed the return for the four years in question and in the application for condonation of delay, it was indicated that the delay in filing of the returns claiming refund was in view of the fact that the mother of the Managing Partner was seriously ill during the period, the Managing Partner was completely engaged in looking after his mother, and therefore, the returns could not be filed. Subsequently, another application Annexure-6 was filed substantiating various reasons for the delay in filing of the returns.
The Hon’ble High Court further observed that the competent authority rejected the appeal only on the ground that the business was continuously running for all these periods and there is no valid reason for late filing of the returns. However, there was no enquiry conducted with regard to the reasons for the delay and the justification given for condonation nor was there any reference to the principles stipulated in the Circular for condonation of delay.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that the application for condonation of delay had been rejected without proper consideration and, therefore it quashed the order and remanded the matter back for reconsideration of the application for condonation of delay.