TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, rejecting the application dated 15.07.2022 filed by the petitioner under section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short "the Act") for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 and credit of tax deducted at source of Rs. 5,24,532/- and refund of TDS of Rs. 5,07,790/-. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a non-resident Indian staying at United States of America. The petitioner travelled to India during the period from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner accordingly filed the application to condone the delay in filing the return for Assessment Year 2020-2021 under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act so as to claim the refund of Rs. 5,07,790/-. 7. During the course of proceedings under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act, notice dated 10.01.2023 was issued to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the written submissions and documentary evidence in response to the notice vide reply dated 17.01.2023 through email. 8. The respondent thereafter considering the submissions of the petitioner rejected the application to condone the delay for filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2020-2021 observing as under: "5. The contention of the assessee is not fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prohibited non citizens from entering India. Since the facility for filing, the return is available online, the assessee could have filed the return from anywhere in the world. The assessee was not required to come to India to gather details to file ITR. Thus, it is clear that the assessee could not provide any reason for genuine hardship in filing ITR for the AY 2020-21 and such reason mentioned as above does not make a ground for any kind of relief and cannot be treated as genuine cause/hardship. 6. Further, the assessed was specifically requested to prove with documentary evidences his claim regarding genuine hardship caused to him. However, he has not produced any cogent evidence in this regard. I am, therefore, satisfied that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside, and the petitioner may be permitted to file the return of income for Financial Year 2020-2021 belatedly by condoning the delay. 12. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has passed the impugned order taking into consideration the aspect of absence of genuine hardship as the petitioner failed to file the return of income within the prescribed time as return can be filed on-line from anywhere in the world. It was therefore, submitted that the excuse given by the petitioner for not being able to come to India during Covid-19 pandemic situation was rightly not accepted by the respondent wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ITR. Thus, it is clear that the assessee could not provide any reason for genuine hardship in filing ITR for the AY 2020-21 and such reason mentioned does not make a ground for any kind of relief and cannot be treated as genuine cause/hardship. 6. It is submitted that the assessee's claim is not rejected on hyper technical ground of delay. The application for condonation of delay in filing of return of income for claiming refund was rejected due to the fact that the assessee failed to prove the genuine hardship being caused to him if the delay is not condoned. 7. It is submitted that though it is true that the phrase "genuine hardship" should be construed liberally, however, the assessee is liable to prove genuine hardship' ....