Court upholds Commissioner's decision to reject condonation application under Income Tax Act for assessment years.

The Court upheld the Commissioner's decision to reject the condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09. The delay in filing returns was deemed the responsibility of the petitioner Co-operative Society, with insufficient grounds for condonation based on hardships. The Court declined to interfere with the Commissioner's discretionary power, leading to the dismissal of the Writ petition with parties bearing their respective costs.

---

---

Issues:
Non-acceptance of returns, rejection of application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, failed to file returns within the due date, citing mandatory audit requirements by the Co-operative department of the State. The delay in filing was attributed to the delay in the audit process, not caused by the petitioner, relying on a precedent judgment [(2009) 311 ITR 177 (Kerala)].

The Standing Counsel distinguished the cited judgment, arguing that the delay was due to the petitioner and not the State department. Audit certificates were received after significant delays, leading to delays in filing returns, which were further extended even after audit completion. The Commissioner rejected the condonation application due to unsatisfactory explanations for the delays.

In a previous case, delay condonation was granted due to delays not attributable to the assessee and financial hardships faced. However, in the current case, delays were found to be the responsibility of the petitioner Society, with no grounds for condonation based on hardships presented.

The petitioner raised conflicting contentions based on different sections of the Income Tax Act for the two assessment years, with no plea of hardship. The Court declined to interfere with the Commissioner's discretionary power in rejecting the condonation application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, leading to the dismissal of the Writ petition with parties bearing their respective costs.

---