TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aprojects Private Limited. Petitioner was engaged in executing the projects launched by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). 2. During the assessment year 2016-2017, petitioner paid tax amounting to Rs. 91,38,083/- which is also reflected in Form 26AS. Petitioner filed its return of income belatedly on 30th November 2016 under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act). The due date for filing the income tax return was 30th September 2016. The time to file income tax return had been extended upto 17th October 2016. Hence there was delay of 43 days in filing the return of income. 3. By a letter dated 19th July 2019, petitioner requested respondent no. 3, Commissioner of Income Tax-22, to condone the delay in filing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c situation came to an end. Petitioner by its letter dated 8th July 2020 submitted their written submission and once again prayed for condonation of delay. 5. Petitioner thereafter, received the impugned order dated 24th December 2020 rejecting petitioner's request for condonation of delay. 6. Before we proceed further, we should note that pursuant to Circular F No. 312/22/2015-OT dated 9th June 2015 issued by CBDT, application / claim for amount exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs shall be considered by the Board. We say this because the last sentence in the impugned order dated 24th December 2020 reads; "This order is passed with the approval of the Member ( TPS & Systems), CBDT." There is nothing to indicate that Board has considered petitioner's a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to explain, which has not been done. 8. Further it is recorded in the impugned order that petitioner has failed in proving the genuine hardship. In this regard, we would refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani Vs. Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2195., where the court has discussed the phrase "genuine hardship" used in Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The court has held that the phrase "genuine hardship" should be construed liberally particularly when the legislature had conferred the power to condone the delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing the matter on merits. While considering this aspec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....feit, real, not pretending (not bogus or merely a ruse). 18. The ingredients of genuine hardship must be determined keeping in view the dictionary meaning thereof and the legal conspectus attending thereto. For the said purpose, another well known principle, namely a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong, may also have to be borne in mind. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Electric Co. Ltd. V. CIT MANU/G1/0407/2001: 255 ITR 396, was pleased to hold as under: The Board was not justified in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground that a case of genuine hardship was not made out by the petitioner and delay in claiming the relief was not satisfactorily explained, more particularly when the returns could not be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or condonation of delay does not stand to benefit by lodging its claim late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does no....