Court upholds CBDT's decision denying condonation for 16-year delay in tax return filing.

The court upheld the CBDT's decision to reject the petitioner's application for condonation of a 16-year delay in filing the original return for AY-1998-1999. Despite acknowledging potential hardships faced by the petitioner, the court deemed the delay unreasonable, emphasizing the need to demonstrate valid reasons for such delays. Allowing condonation would have reopened the assessment for that year in a later assessment period, potentially affecting future set-offs or refunds. The court found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the petition, citing the excessive delay period and insufficient justification provided.

---

---

Issues:
The petitioner is challenging an order passed by CBDT under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, regarding the condonation of delay in filing the original return for AY-1998-1999 to carry forward loss.

1. Impugned Order and Relevant Judgment:
The petitioner sought condonation of a 16-year delay in filing the original return for AY-1998-1999. The court noted that the judgment cited by the petitioner was not relevant as it pertained to a different matter involving a shorter delay period.

2. Reasons for Delay and Application Rejection:
The petitioner filed the return beyond the stipulated period, citing reasons such as a search and seizure operation in 1998, rejection of a writ petition in 2000, and completion of special audit and Section 44AB audit. The application for condonation of delay was filed in 2018, after 16 years from the end of the assessment year.

3. Circular on Condonation of Delay:
The CBDT Circular 9/2015 restricts the condonation of delay applications for claims of refund/loss beyond 6 years from the end of the assessment year, which aligns with the present case's delay period.

4. Court's Decision and Precedent:
The court observed that despite potential hardships faced by the petitioner, the delay in filing the condonation application after completion of audits was unreasonable. Citing a previous case, the court emphasized the necessity for demonstrating reasons for the delay in filing the application.

5. Assessment and Delay Consequences:
Allowing condonation for such a significant delay would effectively reopen the assessment of AY-1998-1999 in a later assessment year, which could impact the recognition of genuine losses for future set-offs or refunds.

6. Conclusion:
The court found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the petition, upholding the CBDT's decision to reject the condonation of delay application due to the excessive delay period and lack of sufficient justification for the delay.

---