TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the parties. 02] The petition challenges the order dated 24/03/2022 passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur rejecting the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing income tax return for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. 03] The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of Geospatial and Engineering Services. During the Financial Year 2019-2020, the petitioner suffered a loss in its business. In case of a loss, an assessee is required to file his return within due date as specified under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act" for short). If the return is filed beyond the due date, the loss suffered in the busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue date of 15/02/2021. No sufficient reason has been disclosed by the petitioner. The petitioner had sufficient time to file the return of income tax within due date. It is contended that no satisfactory, convincing or cogent reason for delay or any hardship was demonstrated. 06] We have heard the learned Counsel Mr. Atharva Manohar for the petitioner and learned Counsel Mr. Anand Parchure for the respondents. The rival contentions, which now called for our consideration, have to be examined in the context of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which is provided for condonation of delay, reads thus : " Section 119(2)(b)- The Central Board of Direct Taxes may, if it considers it desirable or expedient to do so for avoiding genuine hardship, aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt has held that the expression "genuine hardship" used in Section 119(2)(b) of the Act should be construed liberally, particularly, in matters of entertaining of applications seeking condonation of delay and this Court was pleased to observe as under: "15. The phrase "genuine hardship" used in Section 119(2)(b) should have been construed liberally even when the petitioner has complied with all the conditions mentioned in Circular dated 12th October, 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 here in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at ordinarily an applicant applying for condonation of delay does not benefit by lodging its claim late and refusing to condone a delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold defeating the cause of justice. Substantial justice cannot be defeated by technical considerations of delay, where there is no deliberate delay or delay on account of negligence or on account of mala fide, the authorities should have taken a justice oriented approach and if a claim is legitimately due to an applicant even if a delay has occasional due to genuine hardship that should not be denied on technicalities. 11] This takes us to the order dated 24/03/2022 passed by respondent No.1. Perusal of the order reveals that respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is settled principle that for the mistake on the part of the professionals, the litigant should not suffer. This Court in the case of Subhkaran & Sons vs. N.A. Kazi, 5 th ITO and others - 1984 SCC OnLine Bom 411 has held in paragraph 6 as under : "6. In these circumstances, the better order, and one more in consonance with justice, should have been to accept the firm's request and condone the delay in filing Form No.11A. Refusal to do so resulted in technicality triumphing over justice. A party may not suffer for no fault on this part and for a sheer mistake or oversight on the part of his legal or tax advisers. All that was necessary for the firm to do was in fact done by it and its partners. That the chartered accountants made a mistake....