CWP No. 8427 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 8427 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision 7 .9.2009 M/s Bindra Contractors ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr.S.K.Mukhi ,Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the respondents 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 7.1.2009 (P.1) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhatinda rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking refund and condonation of delay in filing the returns in respect of the assessment years 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 Commissioner 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 Section 139 of the Income Tax 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 CWP No. 8427 of 2009(O&M) 2 to file the returns within time. Another excuse that 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. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find that the findings recorded by the Commissioner 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 Commissioner in the impugned order is logical and the findings are based on evidence. The writ petition is wholly mis-conceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 7.9.2009 Judge okg