2025 (11) TMI 1519

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jecting the application to condone the delay in filing its revised/rectified Return of Income under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for Assessment Year 2018-19, and the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 17.11.2019 whereby the refund due to the Petitioner was reduced by Rs. 25,52,814/-. 3. Mr Jain, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the tax audit report A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on 30.10.2018, and the Return of Income was filed on 31.10.2018. It is the case of the Petitioner that under clause 20(b) of the tax audit report [for A.Y. 2018-19], the Tax Auditor was required to report details only of contributions received from employees for funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication was rejected by the Respondent No.1 vide order dated 29.01.2025, which is impugned in the present petition. 6. In this backdrop, Mr Jain, submitted that the limitation period to furnish the revised Return of Income under Section 139(5) for the A.Y. 2018-19 was 31.03.2019. The Petitioner became aware of the error in reporting the amounts in the original tax audit report only when it reviewed the intimation dated 17.11.2019 issued under Section 143(1). It is the contention of the Petitioner company that initially it was not aware about the said intimation dated 17.11.2019 as the same was not traced in its email and that it became aware of it only after reopening of its office operations -post the first wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of Income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 5.2.2021 which only shows that the Petitioner's accounts/finance division was very much working. He stated that the reason cited by the Petitioner that the intimation dated 17.11.2019 under Section 143(1) was missing/not seen in the email and that it was discovered only after the reopening of the office post Pandemic of COVID-19, does not inspire any confidence and the same is without cogent evidence. He, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled for the discretionary relief sought from this Court in its writ jurisdiction. Consequently, he submitted that the above Writ Petition be dismissed. 8. We have heard the parties at length. We find that the limitation period to furnish the revised Ret....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as well as the Range Head had submitted that it was a fit case for condonation of delay in filing the return. 11. In our considered opinion, in the facts of the present case, the Petitioner has given sufficient explanation for the delay. We find that there was a bona fide reason for the delay in filing the said revised/rectified Return of Income. Time and again, this Court has taken the view that the authorities, whilst considering applications under Section 119(2)(b), ought to take a justice oriented approach rather than a pedantic one. One such decision is in the case of Magenta EV solutions Private Limited vs. CBDT [Writ Petition No. 11689 of 2024, decided on 23.09.2025]. 12. In the facts of the present case, we find no reasonable ....