JILA SHAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK andORS. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and ORS.

WP/1368/2002

AI Insights

The case involves Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Durg, a cooperative bank, which challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting its application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an income tax assessment. The bank argued that its income was exempt from tax under section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner rejected the application for condonation of delay on the grounds that the bank failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay of over three years in filing the appeal. The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the need for detailed reasons to justify such a significant delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689624 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi (Dead) by LRs. & Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND DADARIYA
• Keywords: Banking Business; Co-operative Bank; Condonation of delay; Income tax exemption
• Section: 264; 80-P(2)(a)(i)

Judgement Text

"AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETmON No. 1368 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Durg, tfarougli its Maiiager, Jila Sahakari Kesidriya Bank Mydt. Durg, Diatt. Durg. VERSUS 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Buildiiig, Civil L&es, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Income Tax OfBcer (Assessing Officer) Ward - 1, B!iilai,Distt. Durg. WRIT PETmON LTMDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITLTION OF INDIA SB^Hon'Ue Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Present: ShriAnandDadariya, AdvocateappearmgonbehalfofShri DeepakJaiii, Advocateforthepetitioaer. , Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate forthe respondents. ORDER (ORAL) 1. 2. .....j..- (Passed on 20th day of August, 2009) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 19 December, 2001 (Aonexure A/4) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in an appeal undei- section 264 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961'). The facts, in nutshell, are tiiat ihe Assessing Officer, by order dated 18 Febmar^', 1997 (Annexure A/l) determined the payment of mcome tax. Being asgrieved, the petitioner challenged the said order before the Commissioner, Income Tax, contending that fhe petitioner being a registered Co-operative Bank carrying on business ofbanking, its income is fully exempted from tax under section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of tlie Act, 1961, after a pedod of about three years and two months beyond the limitation period alongvvith an application for condonation of delay (Annexure A/3). The reasons assigned for condoning the delav tvas that the duty offhe Court or Commissioner is not to find fault with the applicant fbr the delav but to examine wfaefher the| explanation for the delay was offered is convincing and acceptable, and if so fbr what reasons. A liberal approach should be adopted inj case of Bank. The Commissioner, Income Tax, after havins considered the application came to the conelusion that the retum was] Uy^nii. completed on 18U1 Febrjar^', 1997. The application should have filed by 3 Ist March, 1998 but the application was filed on 29th June, 2001 and as such, there was a delay of more than 3 years and 2 months. It was farther observed tfaat there is no sufBcient reason or explanation offered by the petitioner, which prevented it fi-om filin^ the application in time. Accordinsly, the appUcation was rejected on the ground ofdelay. Thus, this petition. 3. Having heard leamed counsel appeamig for the parties, pemsed the pleadmes and documents appended thereto, fhe reasons offered by the petitioner in the application is neither satisfactor ' nor reasonable. The petitioner ought to have given detailed reasons whieh prevented it from approaching the Commissioner, lacome Tax, within the prescribed time. ! . 4. Contention of Shri Dadariya that the Supreme Coiirt has condoned delay of more than 6500 days in State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi (Dead) by LRs. & Others , is not of any help as fhe facts involved in that case were entirely different wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was ofthe view that in the interest ofiustice, the delav may be condoned subject to payment of exemplary cost quantified at Rs. 10 Lacs. ' 5. Condonation of delay depends on facts of each case. In the present case, no reasons have been offered by tfae petitioner to take an extraordinary view and condone the delay. I do not fmd any jurisdictional orprocedural error inthe impugned order. 6. Aceordingly,thispetitionbeingdevoidofmerit isdismissed. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge "