Gyanodaya Education Society vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes

PDF · subscribers
WP/13904/2021HC 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 held 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. The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the CBDT within one month, the CBDT shall consider the prayer for condonation of delay on its own merits, without dismissing it solely on the ground of limitation. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the condonation request itself but guided the petitioner to the appropriate authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gyanodaya Education Society, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemption, Bhopal. The Commissioner declined to condone a delay of over 365 days in filing Form 10B. The Revenue brought to the Court's attention 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 condone delays beyond prescribed periods.

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 limitations imposed by CBDT Circular dated 03.01.2020? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee's counsel regarding the Commissioner's power or the validity of the impugned order. The assessee filed the writ petition challenging the order. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the Commissioner's order was in accordance with law as the Commissioner lacks the power to condone delays beyond 365 days. They relied on CBDT Circular dated 03.01.2020 and Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which empowers the CBDT to condone delays. The Revenue argued that the petitioner could approach the CBDT directly under Section 119(2)(b) if aggrieved by the impugned order.

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. 13904 of 2021 Between:- GYANODAYA EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SHRI PRASHANT THOTE DIAMOND CEMENT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY MR. SAPAN USRETHE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ) AND 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NEW DELHI (DELHI) 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ECEM PTION 2ND FLOOR METRO WALK BUILDING BITTAN MARKET (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ECEMPTION CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPTT. BANGALURU (KARNATAKA) .....RESPONDENTS (BY MR. SANJAY LAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS ) This petition coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU passed the following: 1 ORDER The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution has been filed assailing order dated 30.03.2021(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 30.03.2021. 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 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 2 (SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE on limitation alone. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of. julie

3 Digitally signed by JULIE SINGH Date: 2022.06.20 12:57:54 IST SAN Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JULIE SINGH Date: 2022.06.20 12:57:54 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 →