Wp(C)/20227/2023 Of Sureshan M v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 1 DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945WP(C) NO. 20227 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: SURESHAN M.,AGED 59 YEARSMOOLAKANDY, S/O.LATE THAZHEPURAYIL VILAMBAN KUNHIKANNAN , NEST KELOTHIAL, ELAMPARA PO, ELAMPARA, KANNUR, PIN - 670595 BY ADV ANISH JOSE ANTONY RESPONDENT/S: 1THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOZHIKODE, AAAKAR BHAVAN, MANAMCHIRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 6735952THE 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 FORADMISSION ON 01.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 20227 OF 2023 J U D G M E N T The present writ petition has been filed impugning order dated 19.5.2023 passed by thePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikkode,Ext.P2, whereby the application of the petitionerfiled on 5.4.2023 to condone the delay in filingrefund application for the assessment year 2011-12came to be dismissed, considering the circular,Ext.P7, dated 9.6.2015. 2.Vide the said Circular, Ext.P7, the powerto condone the delay in filing return/refundapplication up to Rs.50 lakhs has been delegated tothe Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax/theChief Commissioners of Income Tax. However,paragraph no.3 of the Circular specificallyprovides that no application for condonation ofdelay would be entertained beyond six years fromthe end of the assessment year for which suchapplication/claim is made. 3.In the present case, the application hasbeen filed beyond the period of six years and, therefore, the application has been rejected by thePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax vide theimpugned order. I find no ground to entertain thepresent writ petition. 4.I also do not find any substance in thechallenge made to the Circular, Ext.P7, dated9.6.2015, which has been issued by the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes prescribing the procedure andlimitation in exercising the power for condoningthe delay. It is well within the power of theBoard to prescribe the time limit for filing theapplication for condonation of delay. In viewthereof, I find that the argument challenging theCircular has no merit. The writ petition fails and the same is,accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutoryapplication, if any, in the present writ petitionstands dismissed. jg Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE WP(C) NO. 20227 OF 2023 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20227/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.4.2022 PASSEDBY THE 1ST RESPONDENTBY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.5.2023 PASSEDBY THE 1ST RESPONDENTBY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 26AS UPDATED ON 20.03.201820.03.2018 Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REFUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAYOF DELAY Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 29.3.2023THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 29.3.2023 Exhibit P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 09.06.201509.06.2015 Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.08.2023 Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY ME DATED 31.08.2023DATED 31.08.2023