1. OM PRAKASH, C.J.---This appeal is preferred by the assessees against the judgment, dated March 17, 1994 (see (1994) 209 ITR 36), passed by the learned single Judge.
2. The assessees sought rectification under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), by the applications which were made belatedly. Condonation of delay was sought by the applications made under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short "the Board"), taking into consideration the report of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, which was forwarded to it by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, rejected the applications for condonation of delay. Such rejection was challenged in the original petition before this Court.
3. The learned single Judge rejected the original petition observing as under (page 40): "The question whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay or not is a matter within the discretion of the Board. The Board considered the matter and found that there was no ground for condonation of the delay."
4. Before the Judge, the assessees contended that the Board had lost its jurisdiction to consider the applications for condonation of delay, inasmuch as the files had been transferred to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore. Rejecting such contention of the assessees, the learned single Judge observed that there was no evidence to show that the files had been transferred to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax at Bangalore, and that the Board thereby divested itself of its jurisdiction.
5. We sent for the original record which has been produced by learned senior standing counsel. Upon a perusal of the report which was considered by the Board, it clearly appears that the Chief Income-tax Commissioner at Bangalore simply forwarded the report of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. There is nothing to indicate that the proceedings had been transferred to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax at Bangalore thereby diverting the jurisdiction of the Board in the matter.
6. We fully agree with the learned single Judge that it was purely within the discretion of the Board to condone or not to condone the delay. In this case it cannot be said that the Board acted arbitrarily, inasmuch the Board rejected the application for condonation of delay only after taking into consideration the report called for from the Commissioner of Income-tax Cochin, which was duly forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax at Bangalore.
7. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. eu.