2025 (11) TMI 341

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the respondent. 2 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3 By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.06.2025 passed under Sec. 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 4 The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under: 4.1 The petitioner is an individ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iling of Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The application was filed on 28.11.2024. During the course of hearing, the respondent issued notice to file written submission as well as an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner filed its reply on 24.12.2024. However, by way of order dated 16.06.2025, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected which is now impugned in the present writ petition. 5 Mr. Vijay Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that there was genuine hardship on the part of the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 is perverse. The case of the petitioner clearly falls within the ambit of four corners of Sec. 119 of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed from filing the return in COVID-19 pandemic. The respondent ought to have condoned the delay in filing the Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2020-21 as that was the period of genuine COVID hardships. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has furnished computation of income along with reply. It is also not in dispute that the purchaser of the property has deposited the TDS which is also reflected in Form 26AS. Therefore, the application preferred by the applicant could not have been rejected. 7.1 In similar circumstances, this Court, in the case of Yogesh Rasiklal Chandrani vs. Commissioner of Income-tax IT & TP., reported in [2025] 173 taxmann.com 660 (Gujarat), has made the following observations: "14. Conside....