SURESHAN M., vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to entertain it. Regarding the first issue, the Court held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax correctly applied Circular No. 9/2015 by dismissing the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. The application was filed beyond the six-year period stipulated in paragraph 3 of the Circular, which specifies that no application for condonation of delay would be entertained beyond this timeframe from the end of the assessment year. Concerning the second issue, the Court found no substance in the challenge made to Circular No. 9/2015. It held that the CBDT has the power to issue such circulars prescribing procedures and limitations for exercising powers, including condoning delays. The Court concluded that the argument challenging the Circular lacked merit. Therefore, the writ petition failed, and the pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Sureshan M., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 19, 2023, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode. This order dismissed the petitioner's application filed on April 5, 2023, seeking condonation of delay in filing a refund application for the assessment year 2011-12. The dismissal was based on Circular No. 9/2015 dated June 9, 2015, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The Circular delegates power to condone delays up to Rs. 50 lakhs to Principal Chief Commissioners/Chief Commissioners but explicitly states that no application for condonation of delay will be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year. The petitioner's application was filed beyond this six-year period.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in dismissing the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a refund application for assessment year 2011-12, considering the provisions of Circular No. 9/2015 dated June 9, 2015? (Question of law and fact, concerning powers of condonation of delay and time limits). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly challenges the dismissal order by seeking relief through the writ petition, arguing that the delay should have been condoned. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Principal Commissioner's order, relied on Circular No. 9/2015, specifically paragraph 3, which bars condonation beyond six years from the end of the assessment year. The revenue contended that the petitioner's application was filed beyond this stipulated period. 2. Whether Circular No. 9/2015 dated June 9, 2015, issued by the CBDT, which prescribes a six-year limitation for entertaining applications for condonation of delay in filing refund applications, is valid and legally sustainable? (Question of law, concerning the power of the CBDT to issue such circulars). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner challenged the validity and substance of the Circular itself. Revenue's Contention: The revenue implicitly supported the Circular by relying on it to dismiss the petitioner's application.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T The present writ petition has been filed impugning order dated 19.5.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikkode, Ext.P2, whereby the application of the petitioner filed on 5.4.2023 to condone the delay in filing refund application for the assessment year 2011-12 came to be dismissed, considering the circular, Ext.P7, dated 9.6.2015. 2. Vide the said Circular, Ext.P7, the power to condone the delay in filing return/refund application up to Rs.50 lakhs has been delegated to the Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax/the Chief Commissioners of Income Tax. However, paragraph no.3 of the Circular specifically provides that no application for condonation of delay would be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which such application/claim is made.
In the present case, the application has been filed beyond the period of six years and,
WP(C) NO. 20227 OF 2023 3 therefore, the application has been rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vide the impugned order. I find no ground to entertain the present writ petition.
I also do not find any substance in the challenge made to the Circular, Ext.P7, dated 9.6.2015, which has been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes prescribing the procedure and limitation in exercising the power for condoning the delay. It is well within the power of the Board to prescribe the time limit for filing the application for condonation of delay. In view thereof, I find that the argument challenging the Circular has no merit. The writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE jg
WP(C) NO. 20227 OF 2023 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
