R. Ramakrishnan v. CBDT (2020) 422 ITR 257 (Karn)(HC)

S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders – Application for refund — Delay in filing application not explained – Dismissal of revision application is held to be valid . [ S.119 (2)(b) Art , 226 ]

The assessment order was passed on August 24, 2005. Against a portion of the order, the assessee had filed an application under S.  264 of the Act and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the assessee had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on or before March 31, 2010 which was the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June 9, 2015. [2015] 374 ITR (St.) 25)  The assessee had not explained the inordinate delay and laches from July 21, 2006 to May 24, 2011. Hence the delay could not be condoned Paragraph 3 of the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated June 9, 2015 ([2015] 374 ITR (St.) 25) lays down that no condonation application for claim of refund or loss shall be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which such application or claim is made. This limit of six years shall be applicable to all authorities having powers to condone the delay as per the above prescribed monetary limits, including the Board. Paragraph 8 states that this circular will cover all such applications or claims for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) which are pending as on the date of issue of the circular. ( AY.2002-03)