Shri Namiyun Parshavnath Jain Swetamber Manidhari Trust vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes

PDF · subscribers
WP/11906/2021HC Madhya Pradesh16 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU3 pages
For Petitioner: Sapan UsretheFor Respondent: Assistant Solicitor General
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that disputed questions of fact pertained to the issue of condonation of delay. It acknowledged that the power to condone delays beyond the prescribed period is vested with the CBDT under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Court advised the petitioner to approach the CBDT directly with their prayer for condonation of delay. The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the CBDT within one month, the Board shall consider the prayer on its own merits, without dismissing it solely on the ground of limitation. The impugned order of the Commissioner was not directly adjudicated upon its merits by the High Court, but the path forward was clarified.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Namiyun Parshavnath Jain Swetamber Manidhari Trust, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemption, Bhopal. This order declined to condone a delay of over 365 days in filing Form 10B. The Revenue pointed to CBDT Circular dated 03.01.2020, which restricts the Commissioner's power to condone delays exceeding 365 days in filing Form 10B. The Revenue also highlighted Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, empowering the CBDT to issue instructions and, specifically, Section 119(2)(b) which allows the Board to condone delays beyond the prescribed period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemption had the power to condone a delay exceeding 365 days in filing Form 10B, considering the CBDT circular dated 03.01.2020. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee's counsel regarding this issue. The petition itself is the challenge to the Commissioner's order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Commissioner's power to condone delay is restricted by the CBDT circular dated 03.01.2020 to a period of 365 days. They further relied on Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which empowers the CBDT to condone delays beyond the prescribed period, suggesting the petitioner should approach the CBDT directly. They contended that the impugned order was in accordance with law as the Commissioner lacked the power to condone delays beyond 365 days.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA ON THE 16th OF JUNE, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 11906 of 2021 Between:- SHRI NAMIYUN PARSHAVNATH JAIN SWETAMBER MANIDHARI TRUST THR. ITS TRUSTEE SHRI RAHUL BARDIA KAUSHAL MANGAL KAUSHAL MANGAL BHAVAN BESIDE LAL SCHOOL SADAR BAZAR JABALPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY MR. SAPAN USRETHE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ) AND 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES THR. ITS CHAIRMAN MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NEW DELHI (DELHI) 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 2ND FLOOR, METRO WALK BUILDING BITTAN MARKET, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXEMPTION CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRAL INCOME TAX DEPARTMET BANGALURU, KARNATAKA (KARNATAKA) .....RESPONDENTS (BY MR. SANJAY LAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE 1 RESPONDENTS ) This petition coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU passed the following: ORDER The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution has been filed assailing order dated 11.09.2020 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemption, Bhopal (M.P.) declining condonation of delay of more than 365 days in filing 10B Form. Learned counsel for Revenue has drawn the attention of this Court to the CBDT circular dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure-P/2) which inter alia, restricts the power of the Commissioner of condoning delay for more than 365 days in filing Form No.10B. Learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 119 of IT Act empowering CBDT to issue instructions to authorities sub-ordinate to it. Section 119(2)(b) in specific terms empowers the Board to condone delay beyond the period prescribed under the Act. Relying upon the said provision u/S.119(2)(b), learned counsel for the Revenue contends that petitioner can approach CBDT being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.09.2020. He further submits that the order impugned is in accordance with law since the Commissioner of Income Tax is not vested with any power to condone delay beyond the period of 365 days and therefore, the impugned order cannot be found fault with. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and perusing the material on record, it is revealed that since disputed questions of fact are 2 (SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE pertaining to the issue of condonation of delay and the power to condone is vested with CBDT u/S.119(2)(b), the petitioner is well advised to approach the Board, which if done within a period of one month, the CBDT shall consider the prayer for condonation of delay on its own merits without being dismissed on limitation alone. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of. julie

3 Digitally signed by JULIE SINGH Date: 2022.06.20 12:57:53 IST SAN Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JULIE SINGH Date: 2022.06.20 12:57:53 IST SAN Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →