2016 (10) TMI 358 - HC - Income Tax

High Court denies petitioner's request to revise tax return citing inadequate justification for delay

Laljibhai Mohanbhai Ghori Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's request to accept a revised return for the assessment year 2011-12 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court ... Condonation of delay in filing o return - reasons for delay - petitioner contended that the documents were misplaced in the Chartered Accountant's office - Held that:- From the materials on record, we gather that admittedly, the return filed by the petitioner was late by merely seven months. In order to explain such delay, the petitioner contended that the documents were misplaced in the Chartered Accountant's office and he, therefore, could not have filed the return in time. He further stated that his wife was suffering from “some severe illness for which she was operated on 14.02.2012 and after her recovery, I was in a position to handover an another set of documents to my Chartered Accountant's office for filing return”. The explanation offered by the petitioner cannot be accepted unless sufficiently strong reasons are shown. It would not be possible to find fault with the Revenue authorities in exercising powers under Section 119 of the Act. Routine, liberal and overindulgent approach in condoning delay would open floodgates of applications, completely throwing the tax assessment and recovery machinery out of gear. We may recall, the grounds raised by the petitioner for delay of nearly seven months were that Chartered Accountant's office lost the papers and therefore, could not file return and further, that due to the illness of his wife, he could not follow filing of return with the Chartered Accountant. A minor or a few days' delay could perhaps be explained by suggesting that the Chartered Accountant's office lost the papers. The delay was substantial. Further, in the application that the petitioner filed, he only stated that his wife had some severe illness without specifying the nature of illness, its duration and the kind of treatment needed. These aspects would be relevant since the operation that the petitioner claimed his wife underwent, took-place on 14.02.2012 i.e. long after the due date for filing the return, in the end of July of previous year. Thus, very clearly, the illness of wife had nothing to do with the petitioner's missing the date for filing the return. This additional ground, therefore, also does not in any manner, explained the delay. Issues:- Petitioner seeking direction to accept revised return for assessment year 2011-12- Dismissal of petitioner's application for revised return by respondent- Petitioner's reasons for late filing of return and request for acceptance of revised return- Interpretation of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding revision of returnAnalysis:The petitioner, an individual, filed a late return for the assessment year 2011-12, declaring total income and mistakenly offering income from the sale of agricultural land to capital gain tax, which was exempt under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Upon realizing the error, the petitioner sought to file a revised return and requested the authority to treat the original return as filed in time. The respondent dismissed this request, citing lack of genuine and satisfactory reasons for the late filing. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to misplaced documents at the Chartered Accountant's office and his wife's illness, leading to the delay in filing the return.The High Court noted that the delay in filing the return was only seven months, and the reasons provided by the petitioner were not sufficiently strong to justify the delay. The court emphasized that a liberal approach in condoning delays could disrupt the tax assessment and recovery process. The petitioner's explanation regarding the illness of his wife and the misplacement of documents was deemed insufficient to warrant acceptance of the revised return. The court highlighted that the illness of the petitioner's wife occurred long after the due date for filing the return, indicating that it did not contribute to the delay. The court also observed that the amendment to Section 139 allowing revision of returns did not imply retrospective application to all pending cases.Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of providing substantial reasons for late filings and rejecting a routine condonation of delays to maintain the integrity of the tax assessment system. The judgment underscores the need for genuine and compelling justifications for revising returns and highlights the limitations of retrospective application of legislative amendments in tax matters.