LABH SINGH V. PRINCIPAL INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER

CWP/1384/2019

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Labh Singh, a voter in the Mandi Constituency, challenging the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax which condoned the delay in filing income tax returns by the 2nd respondent, an elected Lok Sabha member. The 2nd respondent filed his tax returns for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 just before the elections, along with an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of delay. The Principal Commissioner accepted the application, leading to the writ petition by Labh Singh, who argued that the condonation was arbitrary and lacked grounds. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the discretion exercised by the tax authority was not subject to challenge by a third party.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747671 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VINAY KUTHIALA; DEVI SINGH VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: PEEYUSH VERMA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Genuine hardship; Income Tax; Locus standi; Writ petition
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1384 of 2019 Decided on: 07.08.2019 Labh Singh ...Petitioner Versus Principal Income Tax Commissioner & Anr. ..Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr.Peeyush Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Devi Singh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. V. Ramasubramanian , Chief Justice (Oral) Challenging an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short ‘the Act’), condoning the delay on the part of the 2nd respondent in filing the income tax returns for the assessment year 2014-2015 to 2017-2018, a third party has come up with the above writ petition. 2. Heard Mr.Peeyush Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Devi Singh Verma, Advocate, takes notice for respondent No.1. 3. The 2nd respondent is stated to have been elected to the Lok Sabha from the Mandi Constituency in the election that 2 concluded in May 2019. It appears that just before the election, he filed the tax returns for the assessment year 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 along with an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act on 18.04.2019 for the condonation of delay in filing the returns. The 1st respondent herein passed an order condoning the delay. 4. Contending that the order was completely arbitrary and that there were no grounds for the condonation of delay, the petitioner, who is a voter in the Constituency, has come up with the above writ petition. 5. Obviously, what has driven the petitioner to take this step is that if the delay is not condoned, the 2nd respondent would be deemed to be a person who has not complied with law, inviting civil and penal consequences. In the event of penal consequences getting attracted his very entitlement to contest would have come to be in question. This is the motive behind the present writ petition. 6. De-horse the motive, what is important for this Court to consider is as to whether a third party can take up such an issue at all. Section 119(2)(b) confers powers upon the 1st respondent, to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry 3 of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law. The only sine qua non for the exercise of the power under the said clause, is to see whether there was any genuine hardship for the applicant to be avoided. Section 119(2) (b) of the Act reads as follow: “119(1) xxx xxx xxx 2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power,- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) The Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorize {any income tax authority, not being a Commissioner (Appeals)} to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law.” 7. All that is required for the 1st respondent is to consider whether it is desirable or expedient to allow the petitioner to file the returns for avoiding any genuine hardship. 4 8. In the case on hand, the 1st respondent has considered whether there was a genuine hardship. Once the discretion available under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 119 has been exercised, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with such discretion, especially at the instance of a third party. Therefore, we find that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( V. Ramasubramanian ), Chief Justice ( Anoop Chitkara), Judge August 7, 2019 ( vt ) "