TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 707
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ICE PRANAV TRIVEDI) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vijay H. Patel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 3. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the respondent under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short "the Act") for condonation of delay in filing the return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02.2020 and the entire management of the petitioner Company vested with IRP. 5.3. It was the case of the petitioner Company that being aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2020, the petitioner Company preferred an appeal before the NCLT, Delhi being Appeal No. 464 of 2020. The NCLT, Delhi quashed and set aside the order passed by the NCLT, Ahmedabad and restored the management by way of order dated 23.09.2024. 5.4. It was the case of the petitioner that in view of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic in the Country, the management was not able to control the affairs of the petitioner Company and many of the employees of the Company had left and substantial disruption was caused in its operations and therefore, the Company could not prepare the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtended due date for filing of return for the Assessment Year 2020-21. Therefore, non-filing of the return of income within the due date under Section 139(1) of the Act was due to genuine hardship caused to the petitioner Company. 5.8. It was the case of the petitioner that no sooner the resolution applicant took over the management, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 119(2) of the Act praying to condone the delay caused in filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 and Assessment Year 2021-22 on 23.08.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner participated in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor by submitting a resolution plan and on 01.07.2022 had taken over....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rays for allowing the petition. 8. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent has supported the findings given by the respondent. It was further submitted that when the new management was restored, the situation could have been controlled and the petitioner had sufficient time and resources to complete the filing of return for the year 2021 and the due date of filing of return was extended till 15.02.2021 and therefore, the claim of delay to Covid pandemic is not adequate. 8.1. It was further submitted that even for the Assessment Year 2021-22, the due date was extended till 15.03.2022 and therefore, there was no genuine hardship for the petitioner in filing the return. 9. Having heard learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hile company and having found that the audit was not carried out and the returns were also required to be filed so as to carry forward the losses, the petitioner company immediately got accounts audited and filed the returns. 11. However, in the present case, the books of account not being audited by the IRP it has to be observed that even GST registration came to be cancelled for non-filing of the return for continued period from 23.02.2021 when the new management preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Code, 2017 and by way of order dated 29.11.2022 the registration of the petitioner was restored under the provisions of the CGST Act. 12. The petitioner company has all the right to carry forward losses if any of the previous yea....