| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 1803 2010 SLD 1803 (2010) 323 ITR 441 (2010) 191 TAXMAN 74 |
Delhi High Court
WP(C) No. 437 OF 2010, APRIL 16, 2010
BADAR DURREZ AHMED AND V.K., JAIN, JJ.
Salil Kapoor and Sanat Kapoor for the Appellant. Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal for the
Respondent.
WP(C) No. 437 OF 2010, APRIL 16, 2010
BADAR DURREZ AHMED AND V.K., JAIN, JJ.
Salil Kapoor and Sanat Kapoor for the Appellant. Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal for the
Respondent.
Lodhi Property Co. Ltd.
v.
Under Secretary (ITA-II) Department of Revenue
Law:
Section:
Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Central Board of Direct Taxes - Instructions to subordinate authorities - Whether CBDT has power under section 119(2) to condone delay in case of a return which is filed late and where a claim for carry forward of losses is made - Held, yes Circulars and Notifications : CBDT Circular No. 8, dated 16-5-2001 FACTS The assessee filed an application under section 119 praying for condoning the delay of one day in filing the return of income in respect of the assessment year 2004-05. According to the assessee, its representative reached the Central revenue building at around 5.15 pm, on 1-11-2004, which was the last date for filing the return for the relevant assessment year. However, he was sent from one room to the other and by the time he reached the room where his return was to be accepted, it was already 6.00 p.m. and he was told that the return would not be accepted because the counter had been closed and in those circumstances, the return could be filed only on 2-11-2004. The CBDT rejected the assessee's application by a non-speaking order. The assessee filed writ petition seeking quashing of the said order.The respondent, however, contended that since it was a case of a loss return, there was no provision under law for condoning the delay in filing the return. It was also contended that there was no specific provision contained in section 119(2)(b) which permitted the CBDT to condone the delay in filing a return, and that the said provision only applied to applications or claims for exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under the Act. HELD The very same contention was raised before the Karnataka High Court in the case of Associated Electro Ceramics v. Chairman, CBDT[1993] 201 ITR 501. In that case, the CBDT had disposed of the application under section 119(2) taking the view that section 119(2)(b) did not cover the case of a belated return on the basis of which loss, for the purposes of carrying forward the loss, had to be determined. The view taken by the CBDT was that section 119(2)(b) speaks of an 'application' or a 'claim' and not a 'return' to be filed beyond time. Consequently, it did not accede to…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492