Genuine hardship in delayed Form 10DA claims requires merits-based condonation, not rejection based on corporate financial capacity.

Condonation of delay for filing Form 10DA and claiming a deduction under Section 119(2)(b) must be considered to prevent genuine hardship through a justice-oriented assessment of the delay explanation and claim merits. Financial capacity of a corporate assessee does not negate genuine hardship, and the absence of action against an auditor does not undermine an undisputed certificate that the omission was inadvertent. The authority should not reject a potentially meritorious claim perfunctorily or rely on matters outside its condonation power. Rejection of condonation was set aside, requiring reconsideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10DA and claiming deduction was sustainable under Section 119(2)(b).

Analysis: The power to admit a belated claim exists to avoid genuine hardship and requires a justice-oriented consideration of the explanation for delay and the merits of the claim. Genuine hardship cannot be rejected merely because the assessee is a financially capable body corporate. Nor can the absence of a complaint against the auditor discredit an undisputed certificate acknowledging that the claim and Form 10DA were omitted inadvertently. The authority must not reject a potentially meritorious claim perfunctorily or enter into considerations outside the scope of the condonation power.

Conclusion: The rejection of condonation was unsustainable and was set aside; the application must be reconsidered on merits. This is in favour of the assessee.

---