TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1039
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-(Rupees Four Thousand One Hundred Ninety Only); c) Issue appropriate directions while quashing the Demand Notice issued by the Revenue under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 and stay other consequential actions that may arise out of the Impugned Order; and..." 2. In effect, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the respondent, on an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') seeking condonation of delay in filing the Income Tax Return ('ITR') and Form 10-IC for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2023-24. The impugned order reads as under: "Application dated 14.02.2024 requesting for condonation of delay in filing of return of income and Form 10IC for the Assessment Year 2023-24 was filed by the assessee on 16.02.2024 stating as under:- This is in reference to the captioned subject. It is submitted that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30.12.2023 vide acknowledgment number 592521421301223 for the year under reference. The copy of the ITR acknowledgement is enclosed herewith as per Annexure-1. It is submitted that in the income tax return, the assessee company opted sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee has not filed return of income for A.Y. 2023-24. As per the application, the assessee has sought permission to file income tax return & Form 10IC for A.Y. 2023-24 so that refund of Rs. 4,190/- could be claimed by it. The reason for non-compliance by the assessee for filing of return of income is that the accountant of the assessee inadvertently forgot to file the income tax return and Form 10IC within the due date specified in the Act. The assessee company has filed return of income in earlier years. The assessee is well aware of the statutory compliances of filing of filing of return of income and other forms/reports. However the assessee has not taken necessary steps to ensure necessary compliance to file the Income Tax return and related reports within the specified time. There is no reasonable cause for non-compliance by the assessee. Therefore, the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing of return of income and Form 10IC for AlY. 2023-24 cannot be permitted. The application filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed." 3. Some of the facts relevant to be noted for the purpose of this judgment are, the assessee filed his ITR on 30.12.2023 und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. It is his submission that the respondent has failed to appreciate that the limitation would not come as a hindrance to do substantial justice. The delay was not deliberate/wilful. It was on account of genuine hardship, that, ITR could not be filed on time. 9. According to the counsel, the respondent failed to exercise the discretionary power under Section 119 to further the cause of equity. It is his submission that the respondent has also failed to follow the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) whereby the respondent was to focus on evaluating sufficiency of reasons for delay rather that merit. 10. He stated that the impugned order overlooks the return filed by the assessee, demonstrating his intention to comply with applicable laws. It is also his submission that the impugned order is without any rationale/reasoning and merely states that there is no reasonable cause for non-compliance by the assessee. 11. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Shokeen vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-22 & Ors., W.P.(C) 13112/2018, wherein it was held that, it is trite law that rendering substantial justice shall be paramount consideration of the Courts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee has itself admitted that it has failed to comply with the statutory time for filing the ITR and Form 10-IC due to the negligence of its accountant. This was not found to be acceptable and cannot be considered as a case of genuine hardship. 16. He also contested that the reliance placed by the counsel for the assessee on the case of B.M. Malani vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, (2008) 306 ITR 196 (SC) where the issue before the Court was whether the CIT waived the amount of interest payable by the assessee under Section 220(2A) on account of genuine hardship. In the instant case, according to him, there is no case of genuine hardship. 17. Mr. Rai has also heavily relied on the fact that the assessee is habitual in filing late returns. The details of its filing of ITRs filed for the last three years i.e., AY 2020-21 to AY 2022-23 are as under- S.No. AY Due date of filing of ITR Date of filing of ITR Reasons for delay 1 2020-21 31.01.2021 09.02.2021 NA 2 2021-22 31.12.2021 17.02.2022 NA 3 2022-23 31.10.2022 05.11.2022 NA 18. Having heard the learned counsel for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax to the State, even though the monies were not actually required to be paid by them and thereafter, seek refund of the monies so paid by mistake after the proceedings under the Act are dropped by the authorities concerned. The State is not entitled to plead the hyper-technical plea of limitation in such a situation to avoid return of the amounts. Section 119 of the Act vests ample power in the Board to render justice in such a situation. The Board has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the petitioner's request for refund." 24. We may also refer to the case of Sitaldas K.Motwani vs Director Genral Of Income Tax, 323 ITR 223 (Bombay), wherein the Bombay High Court held that the phrase 'genuine hardship' used in Section 119(2)(b) should have been construed liberally, even when the petitioner has applied with all the conditions mentioned in Circular dated 12.10.1993. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment is reproduced as under: "15. The phrase "genuine hardship" used in section 119(2)(b) should have been construed liberally even when the petitioner has complied with all the conditions mentioned in Circular dated 12-10-1993 The Legislature has conferred the power to condon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ors., W.P.(C) 13112/2018, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has observed as under: ""21. However, a bare reading of the impugned order would reflect that there is no element of any reasoning, rationale or discussion by the PCIT before arriving at the conclusion that the case of assessee does not fall under the ambit of genuine hardship. 22. At this juncture, it is fundamental to refer to the observations made by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC 405], which are reproduced herein below:- "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned order. 28. We find, the respondents have not explained, why the reason given by the petitioner that the accountant had forgot to file the ITR cannot be accepted. In the absence of such a finding, the respondents cannot say that there is no reasonable cause for non-compliance by the assessee. In fact the fault on the part of the accountant surely reflects reasonable cause for non-compliance by the assessee. 29. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Electric Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 255 ITR 396, has held that the CBDT was not justified in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground that a case of genuine hardship was not made out by the petitioner and delay in claiming the relief was not satisfactorily explained, more particularly, when the returns could not be filed in time due to the ill health of the officer who was looking after the taxation matters of the petitioner. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under: "6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taken into consideration the documents forming part of the petition. We may state that the respondents have not filed any reply controverting the averments made in the petition. From the recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been examined on the merits. We may state that learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions of the petitioner has stated at the bar that the petitioner would not claim interest on the refund amount payable to the petitioner. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are satisfied that the delay caused in filing the claim for refund was satisfactorily explained by the petitioner and, therefore, the claim for refund should not have been rejected by the Board on technical ground. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, but the direction sought against respondent No. 1 to give amount of refund as prayed for in para. 7(B) of the petition cannot be granted because the claim for refund is not examined by respondent No. 1 on the merits." 30. We may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq and Ors vs. Munshi Lal and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 14105/1981, wherein it was observed as under: "3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by h....