"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 20227 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: SURESHAN M., AGED 59 YEARS MOOLAKANDY, S/O.LATE THAZHEPURAYIL VILAMBAN KUNHIKANNAN , NEST KELOTHIAL, ELAMPARA PO, ELAMPARA, KANNUR, PIN - 670595 BY ADV ANISH JOSE ANTONY RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE, AAAKAR BHAVAN, MANAMCHIRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673595 2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 20227 OF 2023 2 J U D G M E N T The present writ petition has been filed impugning order dated 19.5.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikkode, Ext.P2, whereby the application of the petitioner filed on 5.4.2023 to condone the delay in filing refund application for the assessment year 2011-12 came to be dismissed, considering the circular, Ext.P7, dated 9.6.2015. 2. Vide the said Circular, Ext.P7, the power to condone the delay in filing return/refund application up to Rs.50 lakhs has been delegated to the Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax/the Chief Commissioners of Income Tax. However, paragraph no.3 of the Circular specifically provides that no application for condonation of delay would be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which such application/claim is made. 3. In the present case, the application has been filed beyond the period of six years and, WP(C) NO. 20227 OF 2023 3 therefore, the application has been rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vide the impugned order. I find no ground to entertain the present writ petition. 4. I also do not find any substance in the challenge made to the Circular, Ext.P7, dated 9.6.2015, which has been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes prescribing the procedure and limitation in exercising the power for condoning the delay. It is well within the power of the Board to prescribe the time limit for filing the application for condonation of delay. In view thereof, I find that the argument challenging the Circular has no merit. The writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE jg WP(C) NO. 20227 OF 2023 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20227/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.4.2022 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.5.2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 26AS UPDATED ON 20.03.2018 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REFUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 29.3.2023 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 09.06.2015 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.08.2023 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY ME DATED 31.08.2023 "