PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. K. M. CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD.,

PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN C.R.BUILDING, N.G.ROAD ATTAVARA, MANGALURU-565 001.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE BENGALURU-560 500.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN ADI-UDUPI MALPE ROAD UDUPI-576 103.

Briefly stated the facts are that, the respondent herein had filed the writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing order dated 21/06/2019, bearing No.147/119(2)(b)/Pr.CIT/MNG/2019- 20, passed by respondent No.1 in the writ petition/appellant No.1 herein namely, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru. By the said order, appellant No.1 herein refused to condone the delay and rejected the application filed under Section 119(2)(b)

Learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition along with other similar matters, has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court, passed in Fibrefill Engineers vs. CIT [(2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.)], wherein it has been held that on the aspect of delay, genuine hardship would have to be considered before condoning the delay and discretion has to be exercised in genuine cases of hardship and accordingly, exercising his discretion, learned single Judge held that application seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns has to be reconsidered.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned single Judge was not right in exercising

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned in this appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the impugned order of the learned single Judge as well as the order of appellant No.1/respondent No.1 in the writ petition passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, we find that the learned single Judge was right in setting aside the said order and remanding the matter. However, while remanding the matter, the same ought to have been remanded to respondent No.1 in the writ petition i.e., appellant No.1 herein. Therefore, with the aforesaid modification of the impugned order, the appeal stands disposed.

Since a time frame of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order was granted by the learned single Judge to complete the reconsideration of the application filed by the respondent herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns, we now extend the said time by three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.