Jennifer Pereira v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income

912.wp.2472.13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2472 OF 2013 Jennifer Pereira..Petitioner Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors ..Respondents Mr. Mandar Vaidya a/w Mr. Desmond A. D'Souza,for the Petitioner.None for the Respondents. CORAM :- S. J. VAZIFDAR & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.DATE :- MAY9,2014. P. C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2By order dated 20[th] March 2013, the parties were put to notice that the petition may be heard and finally disposed of at the stage of admission. We, accordingly, proceed to hear the writ Aswale 1/3 912.wp.2472.13 3The facts and issues in this writ petition are identical to those in writ petition no.2422 of 2013, which was disposed of by an order and judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 15[th ]January 2014. The petitioner's case as well as the case of the petitioner in writ petition no.2422 of 2013, related to the refund of tax paid, in view of the provisions of Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue was whether the delay in filing the application for refund could be condoned or not. In that case, as in this case, the application was rejected, in view of a circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The Division Bench held that the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act was being denied by adopting a very hyper technical view that the application for condonation of delay was made beyond 6 years from the end of the assessment year 2004-2005. It was further held that the revised return of the income should itself be considered as an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2) (b) of the Act and refund granted. Aswale 2/3 912.wp.2472.13 4Even in this case, there is no denial of the petitioner's entitlement of the refund. We are bound by the judgment in Devdas Rama Mangalore v/s The Commissioner of Income Tax-26 and Ors, in writ petition no.2422 of 2013 dated 15[th] January 2014. 5In the circumstances, we allow the petition and direct the respondent-revenue, to grant refund to the petitioner. There shall however be no order as to costs. ( B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.) ( S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.) Aswale 3/3