2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the accounting year 2009-10, the petitioner has filed return of income on 30.01.2012 before the 2nd respondent making refund claim of Rs.1,17,404/-. The income tax return was filed after the due dates for filing return under Sections 139(1) and 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the Act'') and the due date under Section 139(1) of the Act, was 31.07.2009 and due date for filing belated returns under Section 139(4) of the Act, was 31.03.2011. Therefore, an application under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act, was filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent on 20.07.2012, to condone the delay in filing the return of income and seeking refund of income. Under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has powers to, either by general or special order, authorise any income tax authority to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief, after the expiry of the period specified under the Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits and in accordance with law. Such authorisation has been given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide instructions No.13/2006, dated 22.12.2006, authorising the Commissioners of Income Tax to admit the application for condoning the delay for claim of refunds not exceeding Rs.10 lakhs. Since in the instant case, the refund claim was Rs.1,17,404/-, an application was made before the 1st respondent under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The specific averment of the petitioner is that he was not able to file return of income in time due to heavy losses suffered in the business in the subsequent year to the financial year 2008-09 and that new assignments were not forthcoming. The 1st respondent by impugned order dated 03.12.2012, rejected his application to condone the delay in filing income tax return for the assessment year 2009-10, stating that the petitioner has filed return for the subsequent years in time and therefore, he is aware of the statutory obligation to file income tax return within the time limit prescribed under Sections 139(1) and 139(4) of the Act and hence, the reason stated by the petitioner that he was suffering from financial burden in the business, was not convincing. As against the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
