PRABHAKARAN K.B. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved with the rejection of the delay condonation application filed, for condoning the delay occasioned in filing a return for the assessment year 2006 -07. The impugned order is produced at Ext.P6. The learned counsel would contend that in fact, both the petitioner and his wife were under treatment and hence the petitioner could not file a return in time as provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). It is contended that the petitioner is an agriculturist and ordinarily is not an assessee under the Act. In the financial year 2005 -06, the petitioner received certain amounts with respect to an acquisition made under the Land Acquisition Act and that alone necessitated filing of return again, for the purpose of claiming refund of the tax deducted at source. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is absolutely no consideration of the documents evidenced from Ext.P6 which alone mandates a remand and a consequent direction for fresh consideration.

(2.) THE learned Standing Counsel, Government of India (Taxes), would however contend that even as per the report of the Assessing Officer indicated at Ext.P5, the TDS certificate was issued as early as on 27.05.2005 and the medical records produced are all of a later date. In such circumstances, the learned counsel would seek to sustain Ext.P6 order on the ground that the discretion exercised by the Commissioner is not to be interfered with by this Court on the documents produced along with the writ petition.

(3.) EXT .P2 series further indicates that the petitioner was afflicted with 'Acute Intermittant Porphyria'; "a decease of the blood causing mental problems and makes the skin sensitive" (Oxford Dictionary). Considering the nature of the illness of the petitioner which he has been afflicted with, right from 2003 onwards, this Court is of the opinion that the Commissioner has not properly exercised the discretion as evidenced from Ext.P6, especially since the petitioner is said to have produced the entire documents before the Commissioner. It is submitted that the Chartered Accountant, at the time of hearing, had produced the entire materials before the Commissioner, which however, has not been noticed by the Commissioner.