TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... quashment of the order dated 16.1.2018 passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as the CBDT) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act of 1961) and also with a prayer to allow the application in respect of condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15. 5. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of provision of hotel, restaurant and catering services. During the financial year 2012 -13, there was a change in the majority shareholding of the respondent/company and disputes arose between the erstwhile management of the respondent/Company i.e., promoter directors ("Promoters") and the new management i.e., investor directors ("Investors") of the respondent/company. In 2014, a petition came to be filed before the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as the CLB) in Chennai by the Promoters of the respondent/company alleging oppression and mismanagement by the Investors in the respondent/company under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. During the pendency of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....donation of delay in filing the return for the assessment year 2014-15 before the assessing officer. The respondent also produced supporting documents and explained the reasons for the loss incurred, vide its letter dated 29.09.2016. As the claim of the respondent exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs, the respondent was required to make an application to the CBDT under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act of 1961 and accordingly, the respondent/company filed an application dated 07.10.2016 (filed on 13.10.2016) before the CBDT, seeking condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the assessment year 2014- 15, setting out in detail the reason for the delay in filing the return. After giving the respondent/company an opportunity of hearing, the CBDT passed an order dated 16.01.2018 rejecting the aforesaid application for condonation of delay on the ground that delay was not caused by any external factors which the respondent had no control over, without appreciating that internal disputes and prolonged litigation between the promoters and the investors concerning the very management of the respondent/company had led to delay in statutory audits and other compliances, which was beyond the cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incorrectness in claim, as discussed above has created a serious doubt on the correctness of claim made by the assessee in its return of income. In view of condition laid down in para 5(i) of CBDT circular No.9/2015 dated 9th June, 2015, as discussed above, the claim of petitioner for condonation of delay is not admissible and hence stands rejected." 11. Thus, from perusal of paragraph 10 of the impugned order, it is evident that it is cryptic and while deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the claim of the petitioner has been dealt with on merits. It is also pertinent to mention that the circular dated 09.06.2015 does not apply in cases of Central Board of Direct Taxes. However, by placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, the claim of the petitioner for condonation of delay has been held to be not admissible and has been rejected. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court and in the fact situation of the case as well as bearing in mind the well settled legal proposition that the expression 'genuine hardship' should receive liberal consideration, the instant case was a fit case for condonation of delay. In view of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned counsel for the parties at length. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, in cases where an respondent/assessee faces an hardship, Section 119(2)(b) of the Act empowers the CBDT to issue any general or special order authorizing any income tax authority to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under the Act, if the time period for taking the benefit of the same has expired under the Act. Thereafter, the said income tax authority has to examine the return so filed on merits in accordance with law. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. M. Malani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2008) 174 Taxman 363(SC), has held that the term 'genuine hardship' means 'genuine difficulty' and has held that the ingredients of genuine hardship must be determined keeping in view the dictionary meaning thereof and the legal conspectus attending thereto. Further, the Bombay High Court, in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani Vs. Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation), New Delhi, reported in [2010] 187 Taxman 44 (Bom), has held that while considering an application under Section 119(2)(b), th....