2025 (12) TMI 1584

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for short 'IT Act') by Respondent No. 1 (i.e. the CBDT). By the impugned order, the Petitioner's Application for Condonation of Delay in filing its Return of Income for Assessment Year 2018-19 was rejected by holding that the Petitioner has not established any reasonable cause for delay in filing Return of Income. Such rejection has resulted in denial of benefit of carried forward loss of Rs. 21,32,55,935/-. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a Limited Company which is engaged in the business of trading in all types of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. For the A.Y. 2018-19 the Petitioner computed loss under the head Profits and Gains from business and profession of Rs. 22,14,64,051/- and declared short term capital gain ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to be carried forward. 5. Under the Provisions of Section 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no loss is allowed to be carried forward and set off if the Return is not filed on or before the due date under Section 139(1)/(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the Petitioner's claim to carry forward the business loss was rejected due to delay in filing the Return of Income for A.Y. 2018-19 by 8 minutes, the Petitioner filed an Application dated 24th June before Respondent No. 1 requesting it to condone the delay of 8 minutes in filing the Return and allow it to carry forward the loss by exercising statutory powers vested in it under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Petitioner stated that the reason for delay of 8 minutes in up....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....condone the delay in filing the Return of Income even in cases where the Returned Income is a loss. Accordingly, it was submitted that there was no justification in not condoning the delay of 8 minutes in uploading the Return of Income by the Petitioner. 8. Mr. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 submitted that they have not been able to get any instructions from the CBDT on the subject matter of this Writ Petition. Despite the aforesaid, Mr. Sharma submitted that in the facts of the present case, the Petitioner has approached this Court after a period of almost one year and the delay has not been sufficiently explained for this Court to exercise its extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction ....