SRI DEEPAK VARMA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/50054/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01040567201212 February 2013Bench: H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in not exercising the power vested under Section 119(2)(b) to condone the delay. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not appreciated, and the Commissioner should not have decided the matter on merits after refusing to condone the delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner filed revised income tax returns for AY 2007-08 after the prescribed time limit. The Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the petitioner's application to condone the delay in filing these revised returns.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax properly exercised his power to condone the delay in filing revised returns. Whether the Commissioner should have decided the case on merits after refusing to condone the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(5),Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

WRIT PETITION No. 50054/2012 (T-IT)

BETWEEN : --------------

Sri. DEEPAK VARMA S/O. SATYAPAL VARMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A. No. 10, H M ASTORIAN BENSON CROSS ROAD NANDIDURGA ROAD BANGALORE.

… PETITIONER

(By Smt. VANI, ADV.)

AND : -------

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX

BANGALORE IV

C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.

2.

INCOME TAX OFFICER

CIRCLE 8(2)

SAMPIGE ROAD

MALLESWARAM

BANGALORE – 560 002.

… RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. K V ARAVIND, ADV.)

---

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No. 1 VIDE ANNEXURE Q AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

O R D E R

In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.10.2012 Annexure Q passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax – respondent No. 1 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the revised returns.

2.

On 27.07.2007 the petitioner filed return of income tax for the assessment year 2007-08. Before passing the order of assessment

3 the petitioner filed revised returns on 16.07.2009. Since there was delay, the petitioner also filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the revised returns. Under the impugned order respondent No.1 rejected the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court.

3.

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

4.

Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act specifies that an assessee can make a fresh/revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment which ever is earlier. In the instant case the revised return was filed after lapse of one year from the end of relevant assessment year. Therefore there is delay in filing the revised returns. Under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act the Board is empowered to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case respondent

4 No. 1 committed an error in not exercising the power vested in him under Section 119(2)(b). Further it seen that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not appreciated in the impugned order. Lastly it is seen that respondent No. 1 having refused to condone the delay ought not to have ventured to decide the matter on merits of the case. But in the instant case even on merits respondent No. 1 proceeded to pass an order. In the circumstances the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5.

For the reasons stated above, the following; O R D E R i. Writ petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 31.10.2012 Annexure Q passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax – respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE. LRS.

More judgments on Section 139(5)

All 830 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →