2024 (10) TMI 1153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 28.03.2024 under section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) whereby, the application filed by the petitioner-assessee seeking condonation of delay for e-verification of the return of income for the Assessment Year 2022-23 has been rejected. 3. Considering the issue involved and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today. 4. Brief facts referred in the petition, are as under: 4.1 The petitioner -an individual assessee filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2022-23 on 14.11.2022 declaring total income at Rs. 8,80,94....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be considered accordingly. In the application, it was case of the assessee that she is 84 years old Non-resident Individual residing in New Zealand and was not available in India from 17.06.2020 to 09.08.2022. By the time, she was available in India, due date for filing of return of income for the year under consideration had expired. The assessee therefore, filed a belated return of income for the year under consideration under Section 139 (4) of the Act on 14.11.2022 by using "e-verify later" functionality on the income tax portal. However, on account of some technical glitches, she could not E-Verify the return of income through Aadhar OTP within 30 days. As she could not E-Verify the return of income, a signed copy of ITR-V was sent by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refund is genuine, which is evident from the submissions and the documents made available along with the application under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act. Moreover, to show her bona-fides, signed copy of ITR-V was sent to the CPC, Bengaluru on 16.01.2023. Therefore, if delay is not condoned, genuine hardship would be caused to the assessee. Learned Senior Counsel thus, submitted that the order of the respondent dated 28.03.2024 for Assessment Year 2022-23 under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act being erroneous, deserves to be quashed and set aside, with a direction to decide the application on merits within a stipulated time period. 6. Opposing the petition, learned advocate Mr. Dev Patel appearing for the respondent submitted that after fili....