TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the Respondent. 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 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. 17984 of 2022 is treated as the lead matter. The facts of the said petition are recorded herein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and, instead, a refund to the tune of Rs. 2,95,160/-, being the amount of TDS, was due to him. 5.5 It is the Petitioner's case that the said power of attorney holder, Mr. Arvind Mulji Gandhi, completed the transactions without informing the Petitioner about the TDS deducted at source. The said attorney holder passed away on 02.05.2021. 5.6 The Petitioner claims that due to lack of communication from the power of attorney holder and the unawareness of the TDS deduction, he could not file his return of income, which was otherwise due on 31.12.2021. It is further averred that had the Petitioner been informed of the deduction and the capital loss, he would have filed the return and claimed the eligible refund. 5.7 It is contended by the Pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt rejected the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the return for Assessment Year 2021-22, on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to establish any genuine hardship warranting condonation, and accordingly declined to entertain the application. 5.12 Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.08.2023, passed by the Respondent under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers: "(A) 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 for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the rationale adopted by the Respondent, premised on the assertion that Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) is effected through an automated and online mechanism and that the Assessee has access to such information via Form 26AS, does not hold good in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. It is urged that the Petitioner, being a non-resident and ordinarily residing in the United Kingdom, was dependent upon a duly constituted attorney for the management of his affairs in India. It is submitted that said power of attorney holder passed away on 02.05.2021 without apprising the Petitioner of the TDS deduction on the sale of immovable properties, thereby occasioning the delay in filing the return of income. It was further contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that the plea of the Petitioner that he remained unaware of the said TDS deduction is, therefore, not sustainable, as ignorantia juris non excusat - ignorance of the law excuses no one. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23989 of 2022, decided on 10.02.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in Puneet Rastogi v. Principal CCIT (Int. Tax), Delhi & Anr., reaffirming the principle that "ignorance of law is not an excuse". 8. DISCUSSION & FINDINGS:- 8.1 Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as under:- "(b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia and was a non-filer. Further, there were several travel restrictions during Covid time which made filing of the return a difficult task. This factor, being relevant and material to the issue of genuine hardship, ought to have weighed in favour of the Petitioner, particularly when the delay in filing the return stood as the sole impediment in processing the refund of tax deducted at source (TDS) on sale of immovable property during the relevant Assessment Year. 8.4 It is also an admitted position that the Petitioner, being a non-resident during the year under consideration, was not under any statutory obligation to file a return of income in respect of the said sale transactions. In such circumstances, where the Petitioner has bona fide....