Court grants relief in writ petition challenging rejection of tax application due to physical filing, directs reconsideration on merits

The Court allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner/assessee's application under sections 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was physically filed. The rejection based solely on physical filing was deemed unjust as the petitioner had acted in good faith, promptly providing required documents when requested. The Court noted the unavailability of the prescribed form in electronic mode at the time of filing and directed the respondent/revenue to reconsider the application on its merits, setting aside the impugned letter.

---

---

Issues involved: Impugning rejection of application under section 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for being physically filed.

Summary:
The writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner/assessee's application under section 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was physically filed. The impugned order cited physical submission as the principal reason for rejection. However, it was noted that the application was initially entertained and processed by the respondents/revenue even though it was filed physically. The petitioner/assessee had submitted the required documents as per the communication from the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Subsequent letters in support of the application were also filed. The record showed that the petitioner/assessee was not informed until the impugned order in September 2018 that physical filing was not acceptable due to the unavailability of the prescribed form in electronic mode at the time of filing. The Court found that the petitioner/assessee had acted in good faith and had promptly provided the necessary documents when requested. The Court held that the rejection based solely on the physical filing was unjust as electronic filing was not an option when the application was submitted. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned letter, and directed the respondent/revenue to pass consequential orders on the application's merits.

The judgment emphasized that the petitioner/assessee had complied with the process in good faith, submitting documents promptly upon request. It was highlighted that the prescribed form was not available in electronic mode when the application was filed, making electronic filing impossible at that time. The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner/assessee should have proactively moved the application electronically, as the application had been processed without issue until the rejection. The Court concluded that the rejection based solely on the physical filing was unwarranted, given the circumstances of the case. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned letter was set aside, with directions for the respondent/revenue to reconsider the application on its merits.

---