2024 (10) TMI 709

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 24.01.2024 passed under section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for Assessment Year 2022-23. 3. The petitioner is an individual and citizen of India and as such she is entitled to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. 4. The petitioner has studied upto M.A., LL.B., (General) of Gujarat University and she is being assessed to tax since last about more than 30 years in respect of salary, dividend and interest income, etc. The petitioner is not being engaged in any economic activity during her entire life except for serving in the office of the advocate as a Clerk for some years. 5. The petitioner married at an advanced age and her husb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of income as per Para-5 of the Circular No. 9/2015. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Divatia for the petitioner has submitted that considering the facts of the case and circumstances, in which, the petitioner is staying at Mumbai and return of income could not be filed by the advocate of the petitioner, the petitioner should not be deprived of legitimate refund which otherwise is available, if the petitioner is permitted to file the return of income for the year under consideration. 12. It was further submitted that due date of filing of return for the Assessment Year 2022-23 was 31.07.2022 under section 139 (1) and the last date was 31.12.2022 under section 139 (4) of the Act whereas the application for condonation of delay has been filed on 11.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (ii) the petitioner is also ready to accept that no interest will be admissible on the belated return. (iii) the refund arises in case of the petitioner as a result of excess tax deducted/ collected at source. It was therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 17. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel has submitted that the petitioner has failed to point out any genuine hardship as stated in Circular No.9/2015 on which, the reliance is placed. 18. A reference was made to the Circular to point out that in absence of any genuine hardship, the respondent is justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act. 19. Considering th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ious matter being thrown out at the very threshold an cause of justice being defeated......... When substantial justice and technical justice are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of 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 not stand to benefit by resorting to delay in fact he runs a serious risk....." 22. Similarly, in the case of Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that in matters of condonation of delay, a highly pedantic approach s....