COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AXA BUSINESS SERVICES

PDF · subscribers
RP/179/2014HC KarnatakaKAHC01011704201402 February 2016Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, with the consent of both parties, clarified its previous judgment. It held that the application for condonation of delay in filing the revised return must be considered by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as it is the appropriate authority.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed a review petition seeking to modify a previous judgment. Their grievance was that the court had directed the Assessing Officer to consider the condonation of delay for a revised return, whereas only the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has this power.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the correct authority empowered to consider applications for condonation of delay in filing revised income tax returns.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

N/A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2016

Present

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B MANOHAR

Review Petition 179 / 2014 in ITA 139/2015

Between 1 Commissioner of Income Tax

C R Building, Queens Road

Bangalore ] 2 Deputy Commr. Of Income Tax

Circle 11(1), Rashtrothana Bhavan

Nrupathunga Road

Bangalore

Petitioners

(By Sri Jeevan J Neeralgi, Adv.)

And

M/s Axa Business Services Pvt Ltd # 16/2, Residency Road Bangalore

Respondent

(By Sri S Parthasarathy, Adv.)

Review Petition is filed under O 47 R 1 & 2 r/w S.151, CPC for review of judgment dated 9.10.2013 in ITA 139/2013.

Review Petition coming on for Admission this day, Vineet Saran J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a review petition filed by the Revenue for reviewing the judgment dated 9.10.2013 and to restore the appeal of the review petitioner / appellant to be heard independently afresh and thereafter, pass suitable orders.

The sole grievance of the review petitioners is that while disposing of the appeal, this Court had directed that the application for condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income be considered by the ‘Appropriate Authority’ and Assessing Officer’.

According to learned counsel for review petitioners, it is the Central Board of Direct Taxes which alone is authorized to consider the application for condonation of delay and the Assessing Officer does not have any such power. Learned counsel for assessee does not dispute this position.

Accordingly, with consent of learned counsel for parties, we have taken up this review petition for hearing and are disposing it of at the admission stage itself. In view of the fact that the parties do no dispute that the Appropriate Authority to consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income would be the Central Board of Direct Taxes, we clarify sub- para (ii) of para 3 of the judgment to the extent that the application for condonation of delay shall be considered by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which is the Appropriate Authority for considering such an application, in accordance with law and in light of the observations made by this Court in the judgment dated 9.10.2013 as well as the observations made by the Tribunal.

Review Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- Judge

Sd/-

Judge an

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →