Condonation of short filing delay upheld where genuine hardship was shown; consequential tax intimation could not survive.

A very short delay in filing an income tax return may be condoned where genuine hardship is shown under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the refusal to condone a delay of only a few hours was treated as hyper-technical and contrary to the record. The Court held that once condonation was wrongly denied, the consequential intimation issued thereafter had no authority and could not stand. The delay was therefore condoned, and both the rejection order and the intimation were quashed, with directions to process the return in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extremely short delay in filing the income tax return for Assessment Year 2019-20 was liable to be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the consequential intimation and rejection order were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The delay was only 2 hours 38 minutes and 26 seconds. The refusal to condone it was treated as hyper-technical and contrary to the material on record. The Court accepted that the petitioner's case of genuine hardship fell within the scope of the applicable circular and Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Once the request for condonation was wrongly rejected, the consequential intimation issued thereafter was also without authority.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the return was condoned and the impugned intimation as well as the rejection order were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief on the core tax issue, and the respondents were directed to process the return and proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A very short delay in filing a return may be condoned where genuine hardship is shown, and a consequential intimation issued after wrongful refusal of condonation cannot survive.

---