| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2589 (Ker-HC) : (2020) 272 TAXMAN 0051 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 139
Where assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filing returns on account of serious cancer ailments that affected his infant daughter, however, the said application was rejected on ground that the assessee had not placed sufficient material regarding the treatment of his child, accordingly, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after giving one more opportunity to the assessee to produce all material particulars relating to treatment of his child.
|
Return - Condonation of delay in filing return - Delay on account of serious cancerous ailment of assessee's daughter - Assessee failed to provide sufficient material regarding treatment of his child
Assessee filed his returns belatedly for relevant assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing such returns, which was rejected by CIT. Accordingly, the assessee filed an instant writ petition. He submitted that the said rejection order could not be said to be reasonable as the impugned order had not taken into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter. He further submitted that he could not concentrate on his business activities as his 2 years old daughter was diagnosed with a serious cancerous ailment and he had to different hospitals for treatment of his child due to which delay occurred in filing returns. Held: It was found that assessee had not placed material particulars regarding the treatment of his child and he mainly placed reliance on certificate issued by the Regional Cancer Centre. Thus, the assessee should have given more comprehensive details of the treatment of his child and should also have sworn to an affidavit regarding the various aspects which compelled him to divert his energies to the business affairs. However, taking into account the tragic circumstances under which the assessee was forced to undergo in view of serious cancer ailments that affected his infant daughter, the matter was to be remanded to the CIT for fresh consideration after giving one more opportunity to the assessee to produce all material particulars relating to treatment of his child.
REFERRED : Smt. Dr. Sudha Krishnaswamy v. CCIT (International Taxation (2018) 92 taxmann.com 306 (Karn) : (2019) 255 Taxman 46 (Karn) : (2019) 414 ITR 144 (Kar.) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2014 (Karn-HC) Artist Tree (P) Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (2015) 228 Taxman 108 (Bom) : (2014) 52 taxmann.com 152 (Bom) : (2015) 369 ITR 691 (Bom.) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 0037 (Bom-HC)
FAVOUR : Matter remanded
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|