One-day delay in e-filing tax return due to website glitches: refusal to condone set aside, delay condoned.

The dominant issue was whether the tax authority properly exercised its statutory discretion to condone a one-day delay in e-filing the return for AY 2010-11. The HC held that it could take judicial notice that uploading an electronic return necessarily consumes time and that last-minute technical glitches on the department's website could plausibly hinder timely filing; therefore, rejecting condonation for such minimal delay was contrary to the governing legal principles for exercising discretion. Consequently, the HC affirmed the Single Judge's interference, set aside the authority's refusal order, and condoned the one-day delay in filing the return.

---

---

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing income tax return for Assessment Year 2010-11.

Analysis:
The case involved a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's order regarding the filing of income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Respondent, an Assessee, filed the return past midnight on 15.10.2010, which was considered belated. The Assessee sought condonation of delay due to floods affecting general life, which was rejected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The main reason for rejection was the absence of floods in Tamil Nadu, where the Assessee was located, implying the return could have been filed within the extended deadline. The Single Judge set aside the Board's order, directing the Assessing Officer to consider the return on its merits.

Under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, the Board has the discretion to admit applications for relief beyond specified periods and must exercise this discretion judiciously. In this case, the Assessee uploaded the return just after midnight, indicating effort and technical challenges. The Court noted that reasons for delay must be evaluated based on the record available at the time of the decision, without post-hoc justifications. The Court held that the Board did not properly exercise its discretion, leading to the Single Judge's decision to set aside the Board's order.

The Court concluded by condoning the delay in filing the return and instructing the Assessing Officer to process the return in accordance with the law. The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment emphasized the importance of the Board's proper exercise of discretion in condonation cases, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.

---