Wp/8828/2021 Of Shri Gujrati Mandal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR BEFOREHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH WRIT PETITION No. 8828 OF 2021 Between:- SHRI GUJRATI MANDAL THR ITSTREASURER SHRI DEEPAK POPAT 01,CIVIC CENTRE MARHATAL, JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SAPAN USRETHE, ADVOCATE) AND 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXEXEMPTION 2ND FLOOR, METRO WALKBUILDING BITTAN MARKET, BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH) 2.INCOMETAXOFFICERWARDEXEMPTIONCENTRALREVENUEBUILDING NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH) 3.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CETRAL PROCESSING CENTREINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BANGALURU(KARNATAKA) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL, ADVOCATE) - 2 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reserved on :04.08.2022Passed on :17.10.2022---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Per : Justice Sheel Nagu : ORDER The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitutionhas been filed assailing order dated 03.03.2021(Annexure-P/1)passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemption, Bhopal(M.P.) declining condonation of delay of more than 365 days infiling Form 10-B. 2.Learned counsel for Revenue has drawn the attention of thisCourt to the CBDT circular dated 03.01.2020, which inter alia,restricts the power of the Commissioner of condoning delay for morethan 365 days in filing Form No.10B. 3.Learned senior standing counsel for Income Tax Departmenthas also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 119 of IT Actvesting power in CBDT to issue instructions to authorities sub-ordinate to it, inter alia for condonation of delay. 4.Section 119(2)(b) in specific terms empowers the Board tocondone delay beyond the period prescribed under the Act. Relyingupon the said provision u/S.119(2)(b), learned counsel for the Sateesh Revenue contends that petitioner can approach CBDT againstimpugned order dated 03.03.2021. He further submits that the orderimpugned is in accordance with law since the Commissioner ofIncome Tax is not vested with any power to condone delay beyondthe period of 365 days and therefore, the impugned order cannot befound fault with. 5.After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and perusingthe material on record, it is revealed that since disputed questions offact pertaining to the issue of condonation of delay are involved andthe power to condone delay is available with CBDT u/S.119(2)(b),the petitioner is well advised to approach the Board, which if donewithin a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of thisorder, the CBDT shall consider the prayer for condonation of delayon its own merits. 6.With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of. (SHEEL NAGU) (VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE