New Truck Operator Union v. The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Ludhiana
[Citation -2015-LL-0428-52]

Citation 2015-LL-0428-52
Appellant Name New Truck Operator Union
Respondent Name The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Ludhiana
Court HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 28/04/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags condonation of delay • refund
Bot Summary: S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.09.2014 rejecting its application for refund on the ground that the return of income was filed beyond the time prescribed under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax held that due to the late filing of the return, the scrutiny of the case may not be taken up and accordingly, the genuineness of the accounts/income of the assessee could not be ascertained. The application for condoning the delay was rejected on the ground that the assessee had given different reasons for the late filing of the return. The assessee is an Association of Persons comprising of various truck operators. Further, the authorized person of the AOP was under the belief that the return had been filed by e- filing. When the authorized representatives of the assessee inquired about the refund, they came to know that the return had not been filed. In these circumstances, we see no reason to prejudice all the members of the AOP on account of the difficulties faced by the authorized person of the AOP. In the event of the record not substantiating the claim for refund, the same can always be rejected.


IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22572 of 2014 Date of Decision:- 28.04.2015 New Truck Operator Union, Doraha ......Petitioner(s) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present:- Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate, for petitioner. Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for respondent. S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (Oral) petitioner has challenged order dated 22.09.2014 (Annexure P-1) rejecting its application for refund on ground that return of income was filed beyond time prescribed under Section 139(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Commissioner of Income Tax held that due to late filing of return, scrutiny of case may not be taken up and accordingly, genuineness of accounts/income of assessee could not be ascertained. application for condoning delay was rejected on ground that assessee had given different reasons for late filing of return. assessee is Association of Persons (in short 'AOP') comprising of various truck operators. authorized person of AOP 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 01-01-2019 10:25:33 ::: was out of town for part of relevant period. Further, authorized person of AOP was under belief that return had been filed by e- filing. When authorized representatives of assessee inquired about refund, they came to know that return had not been filed. In these circumstances, we see no reason to prejudice all members of AOP on account of difficulties faced by authorized person of AOP. In event of record not substantiating claim for refund, same can always be rejected. There is no warrant for denying petitioner's case being considered on merits. In circumstances, petition is allowed. impugned order is quashed and set aside. application shall be decided on merits. Needless to add that all issues including regarding genuineness of claim are kept open. No order as to costs. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 28.04.2015 shivani 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 01-01-2019 10:25:33 ::: New Truck Operator Union v. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Ludhiana
Report Error