The assessee did not claim exemption under section 10(10C) of the Act the  on the superannuation benefit amount. An assessment order was passed/s 143(1) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer stated that no exemption under section 10(10CC) was claimed but only relief under section 89(1) was claimed.  The assessee filed rectification application to the Assessing Officer by a letter dated March 18, 2008 stating that the amount of superannuation benefit was not taken into consideration for tax exemption. As no response was received the assessee  filed a revised return and filed an application seeking condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b)of the Act. The application was rejected as time barred on the ground that Circular No. 9 of 2015 dated June 9, 2015 ([2015] 374 ITR (St.) 25) of the Central Board of Direct Taxes did not permit condoning the delay beyond the period of six years. On writ the Court held that   the assessee’s entitlement to exemption under section 10C) was noticed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer’s observation in his assessment order regarding exemption under section 10(10C) indicated that he was aware of non-claiming of the exemption by the assessee. Prima facie an order considering the letter of the assessee, dated March 18, 2008, as a rectification application and passing an order would be a legally justifiable order. As no order was passed, the assessee had decided to explore the possibility of filing a revised return. In view of Circular No. 014 (XL-35) dated 11-4-1955  and the peculiar facts of the case, including that letter that could be construed to be a rectification application was not decided, on the merits of the claim for exemption, the revised return could be considered. The reasons assigned while seeking condonation of delay were satisfactory. The order rejecting the condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) was set aside and the delay was condoned. As regards the grant of refund, eventually on account of the delay, there would be exclusion of interest on the amount of refund. The court made it clear that the order had been passed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly, could not be considered to have laid down the law as regards the aspect of condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) or on other issues dealt with. (AY.2004-05)