Court upholds Income Tax Act order on delay in filing return & refund claim

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding condonation of delay in filing the return of income and refund claim. The court found that the order was valid, as the Assessee had previously filed returns on time, indicating awareness of the process and no genuine hardship for late filing. The order, approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner (IT), was deemed clear and cogent, leading to the ruling in favor of the respondents and upholding the challenged order.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Authority to pass the order; Delay in filing return of income; Claim of refund; Lack of opportunity of hearing; Violation of principles of natural justice; Non-speaking order; Pre-determination of order; Ignorance of law as an excuse; Genuine hardship for late filing of return; Approval of the order by Principal Chief Commissioner (IT); Violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:

The petition challenges the order dated 16th December, 2020, issued under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of delay in filing return of income and refund claim. The petitioner argues that the authority to pass the order was vested in Respondent No.1 and could not be delegated. It is contended that the order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

The petitioner further asserts that the order is non-speaking and based on a report from 2019, while ongoing enquiries were indicated in letters from 2020, suggesting pre-determination. The petitioner claims ignorance of the due date for filing the return, citing previous filing seven years ago and being a foreign citizen with OCI status since 2009, not having taxable income in India since 2010-11. However, the court holds that ignorance of law is not an excuse and the previous timely filing indicates awareness of the process.

The court finds that the Assessee filing the ITR for the assessment year 2011-12 within the time limit shows awareness of the process, leading to the conclusion that there was no genuine hardship or reasonable cause for the late filing. It is noted that the impugned order was clear, cogent, and approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner (IT), with due consideration given to the petitioner's contentions. Consequently, the court dismisses the writ petition, ruling in favor of the respondents and upholding the order under challenge.

---