Condonation of delay in filing returns under Section 119(2)(b) strictly governed by prevailing CBDT circulars; independent of Section 148 notice.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an individual assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order passed by the 1^st respondent rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, for condoning the delay in submitting the returns. Earlier, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application under (2)(b) before the 1^st respondent for condoning the delay in filing the income tax returns for the year 2018-19 for claiming refund. The said application was considered by the 1^st respondent in the light of Ext.P5 Circular and rejected the same on the reason that, the application was submitted beyond the period of five years from the end of the relevant assessment year and hence the 1^st respondent was not competent to entertain the said application. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. I have heard Smt.Preetha S. Nair, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Cyriac Tom, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The challenge is raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly on the ground that, the time limit contemplated for considering the said application as per Ext.P4 Circular No.9/2015 was six years, and if the period specified in Ext.P4 is reckoned as the relevant criteria, the application submitted by the petitioner was submitted in time. It is also contended that, the petitioner is having a vested right to get the delay in submitting the returns condoned, in view of Ext.P4 circular and the fact that, subsequently, period of six years was reduced to five years based on Ext.P5, cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Madras in W.P. No.7433 of 2019 and W.M.P. No.8101 of 2019, where certain observations were made by the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court to the effect that, since the Income Tax Authorities failed to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to determine the tax liability of the petitioner, an interference is required.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would oppose the aforesaid contention by pointing out that, as far as Ext.P4 Circular is concerned, the same was superseded as per Ext.P5, by which the period of limitation was reduced to five years. It was also pointed out that, Ext.P5 Circular was issued on 01.10.2024 whereas, the application submitted by the petitioner was on 15.03.2025, which is during the period when Ext.P5 was in force. Therefore, under no circumstances, the 1^st respondent could have considered the application submitted by the petitioner for condoning the delay in submitting the returns.

5. After carefully going through the statutory provisions contained and the contents of Exts.P4 and P5 Circulars, I find merit in the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This is particularly because, Ext.P5 was issued in supersession of Ext.P4 Circular and thus, modifying the period of limitation from six years to five years. With regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner for the failure on the part of the respondents in issuing notice underSection 148of the Income Tax Act, I am of the view that, the said provision has nothing to do with the submission of the returns and the enlargement of time for filing the return underSection 119(2)(b) of the Act. (2)(b) only empowers the Central Board of Direct Taxes to allow the submission of the return in certain circumstances beyond the normal period and in exercise of the said powers, Exts.P4 and P5 Circulars were issued, conferring specific power upon the Princi