In Bombay Mercantile Co-Op. Bank Ltd v. Centralboard Of Direct Taxes, Reported In [2010] 195 Taxman106 (Bombay) And Cosme Matias Menezes (P.) Ltd. V.commissioner Of Income-Tax, Goa, Reported In [2015]

44 03.02.2021 Ct. No.23 pg. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTACONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTIONAPPELLATE SIDE(Via Video Conference) WPA 748 of 2021 Ming Sheng Xuan Limited CompanyVs.Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation) & Ors. Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Sr. AdvocateMr. Avra Mazumder … For the petitioner Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi Mr. Radhamohan Ray … For the Income Tax Authorities The petitioner made two separate applicationsunder Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for condoning thedelay and accepting the return for the assessment years2015-16 and 2016-17. The petitioner says that the returnfor the assessment year 2016-17 has been accepted bycondoning the delay. However, the delay in filing the returnfor the assessment year 2015-16 has not been condonedand, as such, the petitioner’s return has not beenaccepted. The petitioner further says that the authoritiesought to have considered the petitioner’s case in a morelenient and justice-oriented manner instead of a highlypedantic approach by refusing to condone the delay andaccept the return. The petitioner also says that the basicobject of Section 119(2)(b) of the said Act will be frustratedif a stringent view is taken by the authorities. The petitioner says that since the order passed under theprovision of Section 119(2)(b) does not come within theambit of the orders specified in Section 245 of the said Act,the said order is also not appealable. The petitioner, assuch, has approached this Court invoking the writjurisdiction. The petitioner says that the authorities may bedirected to consider the petitioner’s application forcondoning the delay and accepting the return for theassessment year 2015-16 in a lenient and justice-orientedapproach. The petitioner relies upon the judgments delivered in Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, reported in [2010] 195 Taxman106 (Bombay) and Cosme Matias Menezes (P.) Ltd. v.Commissioner of Income-tax, Goa, reported in [2015] 60taxmann.com 233 (Bombay) in support of its argument. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted thatthe petitioner has pleaded ignorance of law as the maincause of delay in filing the return. This contention is thesheet-anchor for the petitioner’s prayer to condone thedelay. The ignorance of law, according to the respondents,cannot be a ground for condoning the delay in filing thereturn. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writpetition. After considering the submissions made on behalfof the parties and the materials on record, I find that theratio of the two judgments cited by the petitioner areapplicable in the instant case. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the viewthat the department ought to have taken a justice-orientedapproach instead of taking a highly pedantic approach inrefusing to condone the delay on the part of the petitionerin filing the return for the assessment year 2015-16. Theorder dated 25[th] August, 2020 passed by the PrincipalChief Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation),being the respondent no.1, in respect of the assessmentyear 2015-16 is set aside. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation), being the respondent no.1, isdirected to reconsider the petitioner’s application made forcondoning the delay and accepting the return for theassessment year 2015-16. The petitioner shouldcommunicate this order to the Principal ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation),immediately. The Principal Chief Commissioner of IncomeTax (International Taxation), being the respondent no.1,should decide the matter within a period of two monthsfrom the date of being approached. Needless to mention, I have not gone into themerits of the matter, save and except to the extent asrecorded hereinabove which is only for the purpose ofdeciding the instant writ petition. Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in thiswrit petition. The same is disposed of accordingly withoutany order as to costs. Needless to mention, I have not gone into themerits of the matter, save and except to the extent asrecorded hereinabove which is only for the purpose ofdeciding the instant writ petition. Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in thiswrit petition. The same is disposed of accordingly withoutany order as to costs. Since I have not called for any affidavits, allegationsmade in the writ petition are deemed to have not beenadmitted. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, ifapplied for, is to be given to the parties, upon complianceof necessary formalities. (Arindam Mukherjee, J.)