The Kerala High Court stated that Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act does not levy any limitation for the purposes of application filing for the condonation of delay.
A single bench of Justice Gopinath P, sees, the same is wrong on the portion of the council to treat the filing date of the application for the condition of the delay since the related date for the intention of recognizing that the same was furnished in 6 years or not.
The taxpayer does not furnish the income return for the AY 2010-11 in the mentioned time under section 139. 31st July 2010 is the last date to file the income tax return for the AY 2010–2011 and the due date on which he can furnish his income return for the particular year was 31st March 2012. The applicant has furnished his income return merely on the date 13.7.2012.
The applicant excused the late return filing for the AY 2010-11 due to the applicant that suffers from ailments and was hospitalized for treatment for the duration of 4 months which starts from 25th Feb 2012.
As the return did not get processed and no tax refund was provided for various years, the applicant perform the inquiry in June 2020 and furnished a writ petition. The respondent needs the applicant to furnish the application for the condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b).
But the record shows that the applicant would be furnished the condonation application for the delay dated 20.1.2021. The petitioner’s application would have been eliminated. The same was revealed that the application furnished via the application was not for the mentioned duration of 6 years from the finish of the related assessment year.
The applicant was excused when the application was furnished after a 6-year duration the same is open to the High court for practising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India and to excuse the delay.
Department excused, the order does not suffer via any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety warranting interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The court finds out that the late filing of the application for the tax exemption, deduction, refund, or other relief post lapse of the duration to make the application or claim and dealing with the same on its advantage as per the law would be the one that could be dismissed practising the jurisdiction.
Section 119(2)(b) stated that the delay excised would be the delay in making the application.
The court stopped the order and remanded the case back to the branch to acknowledge the case in a new mode and decide whether the late from 31.3.2012 (the due date on which a return can get furnished AY 2010–11) to 13.7.2012 (the date of the filing of the return via the applicant) could be excused.
“I am of the view that if the delay from 1.4.2012 to 13.7.2012 (104 days) is condoned and the petitioner is found eligible for a refund, the refund amount will not carry any interest u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it is clear that the petitioner did not pursue his application for nearly eight years (on his own showing). However, the Department will pay such interest if the refund is not actually made within six weeks from the date the petitioner is found eligible for the same,” the court specified.
| Case Title | K C Antony Versus Principal Commissioner |
| Citation | WP(C) No. 13511 Of 2021 |
| Date | 17.11.2022 |
| Counsel For Petitioner | Advocate Anish Jose Antony, L. Venkatappa |
| Counsel For Respondent | Advocate Christopher Abraham |
| Kerala High Court | Read Order |
