TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome for the assessment year 2009-10, resulting into rejection of his claim for refund of Rs. 1,29,126/-. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing respondent No.2 to refund the amount along with interest. 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition as narrated therein are that the petitioner filed his income-tax return for the assessment year 2009-10 on 18.01.2012 (Annexure P-1 Colly) declaring the income of Rs. 2,30,667/- and claimed refund of Rs. 1,29,126/- on account of tax deducted at source after setting off the tax liability. Since there was delay in filing the return, an application dated 12.6.2013 (Annexure P-5) for condonation of delay was filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-7, for rectification of the aforesaid order. However, respondent No.1 rejected the said application vide order dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure P-8). Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in filing the income-tax return beyond the specified period, was on account of "genuine hardship". During the relevant period, he was a distributor of 'Cable Master' for the entire State of Haryana and thus, due to his field duty his family life remained disturbed. More so, the TDS certificates were also misplaced. Thus, for the above reasons, he could not file his return within the stipulated period. According to the learned counsel, the refund of the income tax can be allowed, if the claim is filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed disturbed on account of his field duty, being a distributor of 'Cable Master' in the State of Haryana; and ii) His TDS certificates had got misplaced. 8. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the above reasons, we find the same completely devoid of any merit, because, the petitioner has not been able to refute the stand of the respondent that he never remained distributor of 'Cable Master' after 31.03.2009, as per his own certificate dated 16.04.2008 (Annexure P-2) issued by M/s Innetwork Entertainment Limited and thus, it is evident that the petitioner had no field duty after 31.03.2009. Resultantly, the question of disturbance of his family life does not arise at all. Accordingly he cannot be permitted to allege that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on the merits. The expression "genuine" has received a liberal meaning in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant did not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. If refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund. At this stage, the authority is not expected to go deep into the niceties of law. While determining whether a refund claim is correct and genuine, the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led, it was possible to arrive at the conclu....