Petition Dismissed for Late Tax Return: Proof of Hardship Required

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner failed to prove genuine hardship for the delay in filing the income tax return for assessment year 2009-10. The court highlighted the importance of substantiated claims of hardship and correctness of refund claims, as per legal provisions and precedents.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing income tax return for assessment year 2009-10.
2. Rejection of claim for refund of Rs. 1,29,126.
3. Application for mandamus to direct refund with interest.

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Income Tax Return
The petitioner filed the income tax return for the assessment year 2009-10 on 18.01.2012, claiming a refund of Rs. 1,29,126 due to tax deducted at source. An application for condonation of delay was filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, stating reasons for the delay, including family disturbance and misplacement of TDS certificates. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Instruction No.13 of 2006 states that genuine hardship and correctness of the refund claim must be considered. However, respondent No.1 rejected the application citing reasons for delay, unlawful request, TDS deduction in a firm's name, lack of maintained accounts, and no audit. The petitioner's subsequent application for rectification was also rejected, leading to the writ petition.

Issue 2: Rejection of Claim for Refund
The petitioner argued that the delay was due to genuine hardship, as he was a distributor and faced family disturbances, along with misplaced TDS certificates. The petitioner referred to circulars and instructions under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, emphasizing the authority's power to admit applications for relief after the specified period. Legal precedents were cited to support the argument. However, the respondent contended that the petition lacked merit, as genuine hardship was not proven for the 30-month delay in filing the return.

Issue 3: Application for Mandamus to Direct Refund with Interest
The court examined the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay. It was found that the petitioner's claim of family disturbance due to field duty was unsubstantiated, as per his own certificate indicating the end of distributorship. The misplacement of TDS certificates was also not supported by any corroborative evidence like an FIR or DDR. Legal judgments highlighted the definition of genuine hardship and the authority's discretion in condoning delays. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish genuine hardship for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner could not prove genuine hardship for the delay in filing the income tax return for the assessment year 2009-10. The court emphasized the need for substantiated claims of hardship and correctness of refund claims, as per legal provisions and precedents.

---