Wp(Md)/18049/2019 Of Deepak Kesavlal Parmar v. Prl. Commissioner Of Income Tax

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.10.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJW.P.(MD)No.18049 of 2019 Deepak Kesavlal Parmar: Petitioner The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,Income Tax Office Building,Central Revenue Building Premises,Non Corporate Ward 3(1),No.2,V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road,Bibikulam,Madurai-625 002. PRAYER:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, callingfor the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by therespondent in C.No.109/16/PCIT/MDU-2/ 2016-17, dated 04.06.2019 andquash the same and consequently directing the respondent to condonethe delay in filing an application for refund and to order refund ofthe excess tax amount of Rs.1,89,153/-. O R D E R The petitioner, who is an Income Tax assessee, has filed incometax return for the assessment year 2014-15. Since he is entitled torefund of Rs.1,89,153/- (Rupees One Lakh and Eighty Nine Thousandand One Hundred and Fifty Three only), the amount deducted atsource, he filed an application for the same. He should have filedthe application on or before 31.03.2016 as per Section 239 (2)(c) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, but, according to the petitioner, hismother was undergoing medical treatment for uncontrolledhypertension and cardio myopathy for a long period and she died on18.05.2016 and thereafter, he submitted the application, for returnof refund of money on 24.08.2016 to the respondent. He has alsofiled a petition under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961, for condoning the delay in filing the petition for refund ofamount, but the same was not considered by the respondent. Aftersending complaint to the Prime Minister's Cell, the impugned orderdated 04.06.2019 came to be issued, refusing to condone the delay.The reason being that the petitioner has submitted the income taxreturns for the assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, showingthe income to the tune of Rs.13,83,387/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs andhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Eighty Three Thousand and Three Hundred and Eighty Seven only) andRs.15,23,848/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Twenty Three Thousand andEight Hundred and Forty Eight only) respectively. These earnings,according to the respondent, will prove that the illness of thepetitioner's mother did not hamper his business or profession. Ifthat be so, the same could not be a reason for not filing his returnin time. Hence, the reason stated by the petitioner was not acceptedand it was observed that the denial of condonation of delay may notcause any genuine hardship to the petitioner. Aggrieved over thesame, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. Controverting the grounds raised by the writ petitioner, thelearned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent vehementlycontended that the petitioner has not come out with genuine oracceptable reasons for condoning the delay. There is a delay of fivemonths in filing return of income and seven months for refundapplication. Even though the petitioner stated that his mother hasundergone treatment, he has not produced any document in support ofthe same and in that event, the impugned order is sustainable in theeyes of law and the same does not require any interference. 3. I have considered the submissions. 2. Controverting the grounds raised by the writ petitioner, thelearned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent vehementlycontended that the petitioner has not come out with genuine oracceptable reasons for condoning the delay. There is a delay of fivemonths in filing return of income and seven months for refundapplication. Even though the petitioner stated that his mother hasundergone treatment, he has not produced any document in support ofthe same and in that event, the impugned order is sustainable in theeyes of law and the same does not require any interference. 3. I have considered the submissions. 4. As per Section 119(2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therespondent has power to condone the delay and the same is clarifiedby Circular 9/2015 [F.No.312/22/2015-OT] dated 09.06.2015. When theclaim is not more than Rs.10,00,000/- for any one assessment year,the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has power to condone thedelay. In the present case, the authority has failed to pass suchorders, within the specified period and only on the complaint madeby the petitioner, the order of rejection came to be passed ontechnical grounds rejecting refund of the amount, instead ofdeciding the issue on merits. The reason for not condoning delayis not supported by any material and it may not cause any genuinehardship. Insofar as the authorities are concerned, the amount ofRs.1,89,153/- (Rupees One Lakh and Eighty Nine Thousand and OneHundred and Fifty Three only) may be small, on the other hand, itis a big amount, in the view of point of common man. The petitionerhas stated that he is precluded from submitting the documents inrespect of the medical treatment taken for his mother. Insofar asthe petition for condoning the delay is concerned, when reasons areadduced, the authorities should try to consider the same and dealwith the case on merits, instead of disposing of the matter ontechnical grounds. If at all the petitioner has to be refunded asper the claim made based on the documents, the authorities shouldrefund the amount and it cannot be rejected on technicalities. 5. It is well settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court thatinstead of rejecting the matters on technicalities, the Courts shalldo substantive justice by deciding the case on merits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In such view of that matter, the respondent ought to havecondoned the delay and decided the matter on merits. Consideringthe same, the impugned order passed by the respondent dated04.06.2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to therespondent for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed toconsider the case of the petitioner on merits and pass appropriateorders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. 7.The Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. // True Copy // Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) To The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office Building, Central Revenue Building Premises, Non Corporate Ward 3(1),No.2,V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road,Bibikulam,Madurai-625 002. +1 CC to M/s.S. SRIMATHY, Advocate ( SR-90960[F] dated03/10/2019 ) Order made inW.P.(MD)No.18049 of 2019Dated:01.10.2019 ls/smlMK (08.11.2019) 3P 3C