Case Law Details
Devendra Pai Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court)
The fact that the assessment order observes regarding exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act, which indicates that the Assessing Officer was aware of non-claiming of the exemption. If the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of L. HIRDAY (Supra) and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of RAMCO CEMENT (Supra) are taken note of, prima facie an order to consider the letter of 18.03.2008 as the rectification application and to pass an order appears to be a legally justifiable order. However, learned counsel for the respondent would point out that no case is made out for rectification as the mistake relates to a mistake in non-claiming of an exemption, which is a mistake at the end of the assessee and has nothing to do with the passing of the assessment order.
Taking note of the peculiar facts of the case, the fact remains that the entitlement of exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act was noticed by the Assessing Officer. In fact the petitioner had also sought relief of rectification by way of letter dated 18.03.2008. As no order appears to have been passed on the letter of 18.03.2008, the petitioner decided to seek for condonation of delay to file a revised return by an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. If an order had been passed as regards the rectification application, the assessee may have got relief at that end itself. As no order was passed, the assessee then decided to explore the possibility of filing a revised return.
Unfortunately, the assessee’s application under Section 119(2)(b) has been rejected on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of 6 years, while observing that the Circular 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 does not permit condoning the delay beyond 6 years.
The Circular No.014 (XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 provides as follows:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
