TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nghani for the respondent. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 3. Having regard to the controversy arising in this petition in narrow compass, the same is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. The brief facts of the case are as under : 4.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm and obtained Tax Audit Report for the year under consideration under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on 25.09.2018 which was duly uploaded on the Income Tax portal on the 25.09.2018 and the petitioner filed return of income on 25.09.2018 for the year under consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of the PF and contribution aggregating to Rs. 60,299/-in respect of the ESI. Thus, error was in respect of aggregate sum of Rs. 6,18,311/- (i.e. Rs. 5,58,012/- + Rs. 60,299/-) which is equivalent to the positive adjustment proposed by the CPC vide communication dated 21.01.2019 and upon realising such error, the petitioner obtained a fresh Tax Audit Report from the Chartered Accountant concerned and the same was uploaded on the Income Tax portal on 29.05.2019. 4.4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner received a communication dated 03.01.2020 from the CPC whereby, a positive adjustment of Rs. 95,661/- was proposed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees' contribution to the PF/ the ESI to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Accountant concerned on 20.01.2020 and the same was also uploaded on the Income Tax portal on 20.01.2020 and the petitioner, on the very same day, furnished the return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs. 40,43,951/- and after taking credit of TDS, the petitioner was eligible for refund of Rs. 5,05,750/-. 4.8. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing revised return of income (i.e. return filed on 20.01.2020) whereby, the petitioner had raised a claim on refund of Rs. 5,05,750/-. However, the respondent vide impugned order dated 28.06.2023 passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act rejected the appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... condoned the delay occurred in filing the revised return with correct dates mentioned in the Form 3CD. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent submitted that the respondent-Authority has rightly rejected the application to condone the delay in filing the revised return while exercising the powers under Section 119(2)(b) by relying upon the Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes as the petitioner-assessee has failed to show the genuine hardships for delay occurred in filing the revised returns. It was also submitted that repeated lapses on part of the petitioner cannot be the reason to condone the delay on ground of genuine hardships. 8. Having h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... : "4.1 Vide circular No. 9/2015 F.No.3 12/22/2015-01 dated 09.062015, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has clearly specified that at the time of considering the case under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, it shall be ensured that the case is of the genuine hardship on merits. In this case, the reason for the inordinate delay in filing of returns for A.Y. 2018-19 as stated by the applicant does not seem to be genuine. Filing an Income-tax Return within the prescribed time limit and timely compliance of notice issued is the rule and condonation of delay is an exception. Thus, while condoning the delay, the authorities must be cautious and only on genuine reasons, the authorities are empowered to condone the delay. The power of discretion to ....