Gujarat HC quashes rejection of 380-day delay condonation for income tax return filing citing genuine hardship

Gujarat HC allowed petition challenging rejection of application to condone 380-day delay in filing income tax return. Court held that respondent should have considered petitioner's age and medical condition as genuine hardship. Petitioner, residing outside India during relevant period, was not required to file return but needed it for claiming TDS refund on property sale. Court found petitioner demonstrated bona fide difficulties and respondent should have exercised jurisdiction under Section 119(2)(b) liberally. Impugned order quashed, matter remanded to condone delay and allow refund claim without interest.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting delay in filing income tax return for Assessment Year 2022-23 under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on genuine hardship.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a senior citizen, sold a plot and faced tax deduction at source. Due to residing in the U.S. and health issues, he missed the filing deadline for the return of income. The delay was 380 days, and the respondent rejected the condonation request citing lack of genuine hardship shown by the petitioner. The petitioner argued genuine difficulty due to health reasons and reliance on specific legal precedents supporting a liberal approach in such cases.

The respondent contended that the delay was due to negligence, not genuine hardship, as the medical visit dates were after the filing deadline. The respondent emphasized the availability of online filing facilities and deemed the petitioner's reasons as mere excuses for negligence. The respondent's order highlighted the absence of proper reasons for genuine hardship and the petitioner's failure to provide justification for the delay.

The court acknowledged the petitioner's age, medical condition, and genuine difficulties in filing the return within the due date. It noted that the petitioner was not obligated to file the return while residing abroad during the sale transaction. The court emphasized the need for a liberal approach by the respondent under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act to enable the petitioner to claim the refund rightfully belonging to him. The court highlighted the Circular No. 9 of 2015, stating the petitioner's right to the refund without interest due to the delay.

Conclusively, the court allowed the petition, quashed the respondent's order, and remanded the matter to the respondent to condone the 380-day delay in filing the return within 12 weeks. No costs were awarded in the matter.

---