TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 725
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent. 2. Both these petitions are preferred with a common issue and therefore, the prayers made therein are also common. Both these petitions were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. Having regard to the controversy involved in these petitions, which is in narrow compass, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, both the petitions are taken up for final hearing. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the Respondent. 4. For the sake of convenience, Special Civil Application No. 16538 of 2024 is treated as the lead matter. The facts of the said petition are recorded h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18 is hereby rejected." 7. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 7.1 The case of the Petitioner asserts that, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, the Petitioner, along with the co- owners, jointly sold a property on 30.03.2017 for a total consideration of Rs. 83,00,000/-. The Petitioner, in conjunction with the co-owners, subsequently purchased a new property for Rs. 80,91,100/- and sought a deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of Rs. 23,672/- was applicable to the property sale. In connection with the most recent transaction, no additional tax was imposed, and the amount of Rs. 23,672/- was due to the Petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Respondent at Annexure E. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent to grant the refund due to the Petitioner along with statutory interest. (C) The Hon'ble Court may issue directions to Respondent to direct the concerned Assessing Officer to allow the Petitioner to file the return of income by exercising the power u/s 119(2)(b) and grant the refund subject to verification of the claims made by the Petitioner, (D) Award the cost of this petition. (E) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit." 8. Learned advocate for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther the applicant has demonstrated genuine hardship on merits. The plea that the delay arose due to an error by the Petitioner's Accountant in not claiming the refund is not a tenable ground for condonation of delay. 9.1 Further, it was submitted that the Petitioner had ample opportunity to file or revise the return within the prescribed statutory period but failed to do so. The delay is indicative of a lack of due diligence on the part of the Petitioner, thereby negating the claim of genuine cause for the delay. The Petitioner has also failed to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate the asserted circumstances that prevented timely filing of the return. 10. DISCUSSION & FINDINGS :- 10.1 Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n filing the return of income, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Respondent ought to have duly considered the bona fide error committed by the Petitioner. This aspect, being both relevant and material to the determination of genuine hardship, should have been assessed in favour of the Petitioner, especially in view of the fact that the delay in filing the return was the sole obstacle to processing the refund of tax deducted at source (TDS) for the relevant Assessment Year. 10.4 It is a settled principle of law that "Ignorantia facti excusat" - Ignorance of fact is excusable. In other words, the accountant's inadvertent error cannot be the ground to punish the Petitioner and enrich the Department unjustly, inasmuch as, acco....