KAUSALES EXPORTS INDIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE had heard arguments in the writ petition on 11th May, 1999, and after hearing the parties allowed the writ petition for reasons to be recorded. We now proceed to give reasons for allowing the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking setting aside of the order dt. 28th May, 1998, passed by the CIT, rejecting the petitioner's application dt. 26th March, 1998, for extension of time under S. 80HHC(2)(a) of the INCOME TAX ACT, 1961.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged before us that the petitioner had failed to show any justification for the delay in filing the application and the order did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction and the Court need not go into the merits of the matter in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondent, in view of the decision of this Court in Civil Writ Petn. No. 1689 of 1993, titled Vikram Overseas (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 253 (Del) : TC S25.2577, did not dispute that the CIT has the power and jurisdiction to grant extension of time under S. 80HHC(2)(a) with retrospective effect.