Wp(Md)/1343/2013 Of A.ramkumar v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARANW.P.(MD)No.1343 of 2013 A.Ramkumar : Petitioner 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax – II, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. 2.The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward 1 (3), Tirunelveli. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for therecords pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent inC.No.109/19/CIT-II/2012-2013, dated 04.12.2012 and quash the same andfurther direct the first respondent to process the TDS claim to thepetitioner. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 04.12.2012, onthe file of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, whereby andwhereunder, application submitted by the petitioner to condone the delayunder Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner, who is stated to be a practising advocate, wasfunctioning earlier as an LIC Agent. The petitioner filed his income taxreturns belatedly on 11.07.2012. The petitioner has shown his income belowthe taxable amount, and as such, he is entitled for refund. The petitionerwanted the Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay and accept thereturns. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax was of the view that no justifiablereasons were shown by the petitioner. This made the Commissioner of IncomeTax to reject the application for condoning the delay. The said order ischallenged in this Writ Petition. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, in his counter affidavitcontended that the application of the petitioner does not contain anyreason to condone the delay. Therefore, the application was rightlyrejected. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 6. The petitioner wanted the Commissioner of Income Tax to condone thedelay in filing returns for a period of three years. The Commissioner ofIncome Tax was of the view that the application was bereft of details. Thepetitioner justified the delay by stating that he misplaced the TDScertificates. The fact that the TDS certificates were misplaced cannot bea reason to file the returns belatedly. Since the affidavit was not clearwith respect to the reasons adduced by the petitioner in support of hisclaim, I have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce acopy of the application. The learned counsel wanted further time toproduce the documents. 7. The Commissioner of Income Tax found that there were no justifiablereasons for condoning the delay. It is not open to this Court to scan thematerials and to arrive at a different finding. The petitioner wasexpected to produce sufficient materials in support of his contention thathe was prevented from filing returns on account of certain reasons. Nosuch reasons were given by the petitioner. 8. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiawould not give the High Court an appellate jurisdiction over the orderspassed by the statutory authorities. The Court is essentially concernedwith the decision making process. 9. The issue raised by the petitioner was considered by the firstrespondent in the light of the explanation submitted by him for condoningthe delay. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no merit in thecontention taken by the petitioner. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax – II, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. 2.The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward 1 (3), Tirunelveli. +1C.C. to M/s.Mr.V.Perumal, Advocate in Sr.No.15275+1C.C. to M/s.S.M.S.Johny Basha, Advocate in Sr.No.15287 W.P.(MD)No.1343 of 201325.03.2013 nbPBK 19/04/2013 2P/5C