High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
Bindra Contractors vs. Union Of India & Ors.
Section 139
Asst. Year 1991-92 to 1994-95
M.M. Kumar & Jaswant Singh, JJ.
Civil Writ Petn. No. 8427 of 2009
7th September, 2009
Counsel Appeared :
S.K. Mukhi, for the Petitioner : Mrs. Savita Saxena, for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
The challenge in the instant petition is to the order dt. 7th Jan., 2009 (P.1) passed by the CIT, Bhatinda rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking refund and condonation of delay in filing the returns in respect of the asst. yrs. 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. The excuse that there was terrorism in the State of Punjab was not accepted by the CIT because the assessee had executed a contract work within the time allowed to the assessee by the concerned departments. If the assessee could execute the contract work within the prescribed time it could have surely filed the returns also within the time given in s. 139 of the IT Act, 1961. The other excuse that Amar Nath, partner was sick and the other partners were busy in his treatment has also not found favour because no evidence was produced on record to establish the aforesaid facts. It was also observed that merely because one partner was sick, it could not have prevented the other partners to file the returns within time. Another excuse that the Munshi of the firm had died was also rejected. It could not be believed that the assessee was prevented to engage another Munshi or accountant for a long period of four years.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find that the findings recorded by the CIT in the impugned order do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. It is well-settled that if two opinions are possible then the order cannot be set aside merely because another opinion is to be preferred. The reasoning adopted by the CIT in the impugned order is logical and the findings are based on evidence. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed.
[Citation : 321 ITR 269]
