Best Ready Mix Concrete v. PCIT
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The reported decision distinguishes the PCIT's task in deciding condonation under section 119(2)(b) from deciding the underlying substantive refund/loss claim, and remits the condonation issue.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 119(2)(b)
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Condonation authority versus merits of refund/loss: The reported decision distinguishes the PCIT's task in deciding condonation under section 119(2)(b) from deciding the underlying substantive refund/loss claim, and remits the condonation issue.
Material facts and background
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 37648 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: M/S. BEST READY MIX CONCRETE IV/566B, VELAKKODE, MUNDUR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, K.M. AMEER, PIN - 680541 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON
INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQ & TPS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 BY ADVS. KEERTHIVAS GIRI ADV. P.G. JAYASHANKAR PGJ
impugning the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikkode in Ext.P7 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act,
application of the petitioner for condonation of delay of one day in filing the income tax return for the assessment year 2021-22. 2.
under: “The assesse M/s.Best Ready Mix Concreted has filed a petition on 03.06.2022 to condone the delay in filing of return of income for AY2021-22. As per the instructions of CBDT CIRCULAR 9/2015 [F.NO.312/22/2015-OT], DATED 9-6-2015, on CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REFUND CLAIM AND CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD LOSSES UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) the powers of acceptance/rejection of the application in case of such claims will be subject to Following conditions: I. At the time of considering the case under Section 119(2)(b), it shall be ensured that the income/loss declared
II. The correctness of the claim should be ascertained. In the subject case, sufficient opportunities were given to the assesse to furnish evidences/details regarding the claims made. However, assesse failed to furnish the details/evidences called for. In the absence of substantiating evidences related to the claims made by the assesse, the application is hereby rejected.”
Income Tax to condone the delay in filing return, on consideration given to the application filed by an assessee for not filing return on time.
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
Commissioner of Income Tax has not delineated the grounds for condoning the delay, but has rejected the application considering the merits of the claim of the petitioner. consideration
under: "119. Instructions to subordinate authorities (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board: (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power,(a) xxx xxx xxx (b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorize any incometax authority, not being a Commissioner Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law."
period specified by or under the Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits, in accordance with law. delegated
Court had an occasion to consider the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act and the said circular in the case of Daisy (supra), wherein the Court has been of the opinion that the Circular empowers the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax to consider the merits of the refund claim while exercising the delegated power under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which would amount to circumvent the provisions of the Act.
Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to consider the merits of the refund application and what is required to be
condonation of delay, the Principal Commissioner is not required to go into the merits of the claim of the petitioner. Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Operative decision and relief
COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 02-06-2022
COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH TRHE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT DTD. 30-05-2023
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- Division Bench of this Court in Daisy v. The
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on Condonation authority versus merits of refund/loss. The operative result is classified as Dismissed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Condonation authority versus merits of refund/loss. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Keep registration, audit-report, Form 10/10B/10BB and filing timestamps together; many exemption disputes are procedural and depend on when the form existed versus when it was uploaded.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: Condonation authority versus merits of refund/loss.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 119(2)(b).
- Your matter is at a comparable the same procedural and factual stage stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Kerala High Court considered: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.
- The same legal regime or assessment-period rules relevant to AY 2021-22 apply to your matter.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Best Ready Mix Concrete?
The reported decision distinguishes the PCIT's task in deciding condonation under section 119(2)(b) from deciding the underlying substantive refund/loss claim, and remits the condonation issue.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 37648 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: M/S.
What did the Kerala High Court ultimately decide?
COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 02-06-2022 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH TRHE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT DTD. 30-05-2023
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on Condonation authority versus merits of refund/loss. The operative result is classified as Dismissed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 119(2)(b). The relevant statutory version for AY 2021-22 should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Condonation authority versus merits of refund/loss . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 119(2)(b) — 119(2)(b) is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of condonation authority versus merits of refund/loss. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 119(2)(b) and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on Condonation authority versus merits of refund/loss. The operative result is classified as Dismissed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Authorities appearing in this judgment: Division Bench of this Court in Daisy v. The
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 8 |
| SHA-256 | b4f08b334cd89a8001dc82b17be90eda8f3bbe1a0fab13f36045c76c26cf4996 |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |