A. Ramkumar V. The Commissioner of Income Tax \\u2013 II and The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward 1 (3), Tirunelveli

WP(MD)/1343/2013

AI Insights

The case involves A. Ramkumar, a practicing advocate and former LIC agent, who filed a Writ Petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, challenging the rejection of his application to condone the delay in filing his income tax returns. The petitioner had filed his returns belatedly and sought to have the delay condoned under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming he misplaced his TDS certificates. The Commissioner found no justifiable reasons for the delay and rejected the application, a decision which was upheld by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 819433 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S SRIMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: V PERUMAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Delay in filing; Income Tax; TDS claim; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
• Section: 119(2)(b); 226

Judgement Text

"1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.03.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.1343 of 2013 A.Ramkumar : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax – II, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. 2.The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward 1 (3), Tirunelveli. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent in C.No.109/19/CIT-II/2012-2013, dated 04.12.2012 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to process the TDS claim to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Perumal For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathi Standing Counsel O R D E R This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 04.12.2012, on the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, whereby and whereunder, application submitted by the petitioner to condone the delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner, who is stated to be a practising advocate, was functioning earlier as an LIC Agent. The petitioner filed his income tax returns belatedly on 11.07.2012. The petitioner has shown his income below the taxable amount, and as such, he is entitled for refund. The petitioner wanted the Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay and accept the returns. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax was of the view that no justifiable reasons were shown by the petitioner. This made the Commissioner of Income Tax to reject the application for condoning the delay. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, in his counter affidavit contended that the application of the petitioner does not contain any reason to condone the delay. Therefore, the application was rightly rejected. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6. The petitioner wanted the Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay in filing returns for a period of three years. The Commissioner of Income Tax was of the view that the application was bereft of details. The petitioner justified the delay by stating that he misplaced the TDS certificates. The fact that the TDS certificates were misplaced cannot be a reason to file the returns belatedly. Since the affidavit was not clear with respect to the reasons adduced by the petitioner in support of his claim, I have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce a copy of the application. The learned counsel wanted further time to produce the documents. 7. The Commissioner of Income Tax found that there were no justifiable reasons for condoning the delay. It is not open to this Court to scan the materials and to arrive at a different finding. The petitioner was expected to produce sufficient materials in support of his contention that he was prevented from filing returns on account of certain reasons. No such reasons were given by the petitioner. 8. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not give the High Court an appellate jurisdiction over the orders passed by the statutory authorities. The Court is essentially concerned with the decision making process. 9. The issue raised by the petitioner was considered by the first respondent in the light of the explanation submitted by him for condoning the delay. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no merit in the contention taken by the petitioner. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax – II, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. 2.The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward 1 (3), Tirunelveli. +1C.C. to M/s.Mr.V.Perumal, Advocate in Sr.No.15275 +1C.C. to M/s.S.M.S.Johny Basha, Advocate in Sr.No.15287 W.P.(MD)No.1343 of 2013 25.03.2013 nb PBK 19/04/2013 2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "