VISWANATHAN SILK CENTRE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EIGHT writ petitions bearing Nos. 6095 to 6102 of 1987 came to be dismissed by a learned single judge of this court, on June 22, 1987, by a common order, and since the questions of law and fact are common, all the eight writ appeals are being disposed of in common.

(2.) THE facts are short and simple. THE writ petitioners/appellants were the assessees. THEy had submitted their income-tax returns for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84 every year in accordance with the provisions of law. On January 24, 1986, the appellants herein filed an application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, stating therein that, in the returns tiled by the appellants under the Act, they had omitted to claim the benefit under section 80HH of the Act since they had not been advised properly by the chartered accountant at that time and that the appellants had later on engaged the services of another chartered accountant who advised them that the benefit of section 80HH of the Act could be claimed by them. It was stated that it was due to a mistake that the benefit was not claimed for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84. Along with the application under section 264 of the Act, the appellants also filed a petition seeking condonation of delay in preferring the application under section 264 of the Act. In the application for condonation of delay, the grounds on which the condonation was sought for were detailed as under :

(3.) COMING now to the question of limitation, we find that the learned single judge, in the judgments under appeal, thought that there had been "an inordinate delay of two years in claiming exemption-relief under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act". It is seen that the delay was not of two years, but much more. For the assessment year 1975-76, the delay was more than nine years, while for the assessment year 1976-77, it was eight years, and so on and so forth. The delay was, thus, inordinate and the grounds on which condonation of delay was sought in preferring the petition under section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner were not sufficient to grant the prayer of the appellants. Ignorance of law was pleaded as the first ground for claiming condonation of delay. Ignorance of law is no excuse. The appellants have failed to satisfactorily explain the cause for delay and the Commissioner of Income-tax, therefore, rightly held that, in the absence of proper explanation for the delay, the request for condonation of delay could not be granted. The learned single judge, therefore, rightly held that the exercise of discretion by the Commissioner of Income-tax in refusing to condone the delay did not merit any interference.