TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id order inter alia contending that the first respondent had failed to consider the application in its proper perspective. The statute provides for a Company to file an application to condone delay for refund. Petition is not filed within the prescribed period. It is stated that the only consideration that is required is to find out whether there was genuine hardship, in which event the delay ought to have been condoned. It is submitted that the petitioner Company was suffering huge loss for a period of time and they were not even in a position to engage a proper accountant for preparing the accounts and filing the returns in time. This resulted in the petitioner not approaching the competent authority within time. The fact that the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt applying for condondation of delay, does not stand to benefit by lodging its claim late and if the refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund. It is held at paragraphs 15 & 16 are under: "15. The phrase "genuine hardship" used in S. 119 (2) (b) should have been construed liberally even when the petitioner has complied with all the conditions mentioned in Circular dt. 12th Oct, 1993. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merit. The expression "genuine" has received a liberal meaning in view of the law laid down by the Apex court referred to herein above and while consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority has to see is that on the face of it the person applying for refund after condonation of delay has a case which needs consideration and which is not bound to fail by virtue of some apparent defect. At this stage, the authority is not expected to go deep into the niceties of flaw. While determining whether refund claim is correct and genuine, the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led, it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence." Still further in paragraph 5 of Pala Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd v. Union of India [2009 (311) ITR 177], learned Single Judge of this Court in Paragraph 5 held as under: "5. So far ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... s.119(2)(b) of the Act and consequently direct the fourth respondent to process petitioner's claim for refund under s.237 and grant refund to the extent found eligible within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner." 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent however, submits that each case will have to depend upon its own facts. It is argued that in this particular case, the petitioner has consistently delayed filing the returns and seeking refund of claim. Such a person is not entitled for condonation delay. Therefore, it is contended that the challenge to Ext.P4 is not sustainable. 6. Ext.P1 is the application submitted by the petitioner for condoning delay. It ....