| |
| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0564 (Karn-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 260A
Single Judge was right in setting aside the said order remanding the matter and the same ought to have been remanded to Revenue in petition, since a time frame of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of order was granted by Single Judge to complete the reconsideration of the application filed by assessee seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns, the time was extended by three months.
|
Appeal (High Court) - Condonation of delay in filing returns - Single Judge remanded the matter for reconsideration of application -
Assessee filed the petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing Order passed by Revenue who refused to condone the delay and rejected the application filed under section 119(2)(b). Consequently, the delay in filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year 2018-19 was not taken into consideration for being processed. Single Judge held that application seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns had to be reconsidered. Held: On perusal of order of Single Judge as well as the order of Revenue passed under section 119(2)(b), it was found that Single Judge was right in setting aside the said order and remanding the matter. While remanding the matter, the same ought to have been remanded to Revenue in petition. Since a time frame of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of order was granted by Single Judge to complete the reconsideration of the application filed by assessee seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns, the time was extended by three months.
REFERRED : Fiberfill Engineers v. Asstt. CIT (2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del-Trib) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2016 (Del-Trib).
FAVOUR : Directions issued.
A.Y. :
IN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|