Genuine hardship governs delay condonation for refund claims, and a reasoned refusal will stand absent procedural infirmity.

Patna HC held that condonation of delay in filing a refund application under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act depends on genuine hardship and must be assessed on the facts of each case. The returns were filed long after the due dates, no satisfactory explanation for the delay was given, and the authority had recorded reasons that the delay appeared deliberate and aimed at avoiding scrutiny assessment. The court found no infirmity in the decision-making process and no lack of reasons, so writ interference was unwarranted. The refusal to condone the delay was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to condone the delay in filing the refund application under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be interfered with on the ground of genuine hardship.

Analysis: The power to extend time for filing a refund application is confined to cases of genuine hardship. Such hardship must be assessed on the facts of each case, and no rigid formula can be applied. On the record, the returns were filed long after the due dates, no satisfactory explanation for the delay was offered, and the authority had recorded reasons that the late filing appeared deliberate and intended to avoid scrutiny assessment. In writ jurisdiction, interference is warranted only where the decision-making process is flawed or the order is unsupported by reasons, which was not established.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone the delay was upheld, and the challenge to the order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a matter of discretion confined to genuine hardship, and a reasoned administrative refusal will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent infirmity in the decision-making process.

---