AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Heard learned advocate Mr. Sudhir M. Mehta for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel with learned advocate Mr. Dev D. Patel for the respondents. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : "A. to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 119(2)(b) of the act for A.Y. 2017-18 at Annexure-'F', B. to direct the Respondents to allow the application of the petitioner requestin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere submitted by the petitioner on 10.05.2018 and 18.07.2018. Thereafter, further details were called for by the respondent No. 2 which were also submitted by the petitioner. 3.5. The respondent No. 1-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short 'PCIT') passed an impugned order on 16.10.2023 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act rejecting the application for waiver of time limit for filing of the return for Assessment Year 2017- 18 and intimation letter dated 19.10.2023 was issued. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Sudhir Mehta for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 1-PCIT ought to have condoned the delay in filing the return for Assessment Year 2017-18 as the amount of refund on account of the TDS is not in dispute. It was subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to the PCIT. It was pointed out that in the impugned order passed by the PCIT, inadvertently it was stated that the Assessing Officer has opined to condone the delay in filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18, however, in the report submitted by the Assessing Officer, it was opined that the delay should not be condoned. 5.2. It was further submitted that it was also pointed out by the Assessing Officer that the case of the assessee does not pertain under any genuine hardship as no death certificate of the father of the petitioner was also attached by the assessee and assessee approached for filing of return with a delay condonation application after four years of his first application. 5.3. It was further submitted b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Apex Court. 7. In case of Chintan Navnitlal Parikh (HUF) (Supra) this Court considered the decision in case of B.M. Malani Versus CIT reported in [2008] 174 Taxman 363/306 ITR 196 wherein the word and phrase "genuine hardship" was interpreted by the Apex Court referring to the term "genuine" as per New Collins English Dictionary, where the word genuine was defined as "Genuine: not a fake or counterfeit, real, not pretending (not bogus or merely a ruse)." The Apex Court in the said case, on applying the principle of purposive construction held that the ingredients of genuine hardships must be determined keeping in view the dictionary meaning thereof and legal conspectus attending thereto. It was further held by the Apex Court that the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst 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 mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. The approach of the authorities should be justice oriented so as to advance cause of justice. If refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund. 16. Whether the refund claim is correct and genuine, the authority must satisfy itself that the applicant has a prima facie correct and genuin....