TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 3. The petitioner filed return of income for the Assessment Year (for short 'A.Y.') 2019-20 on 02.10.2019, for A.Y. 2020-21 on 02.12.2020 and for A.Y. 2021-22 on 22.12.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act of Rs. 22,93,740/- for A.Y. 2019-20 Rs. 41,13,560/- for A.Y. 2020-21 and Rs.23,51,080/- for A.Y. 2021-22. 3.1 The petitioner realized the mistake in not claiming the deduction as it was not advised by the Chartered Accountant M/s. KPSJ & Associates LLP under Section 80JJAA of the Act. The petitioner came to know about the fault when he approached the Chartered Accountant, Nimish Vayawala, in October, 2022 for power plant related taxation issues and on his examination of the return of incomes, he drew attention of the petitioner that the petitioner-Company is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act, and hence he advised the petitioner to file an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay in making the claim and filing the report in Form No.10DA by filing a revised return. 3.2 Accordingly, the petitioner fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act since it is not permissible for the petitioner to claim the deduction in the reassessment proceedings under Sections 147, 148 of the Act. It is thus, urged that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the respondent may be directed to decide the application afresh. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent while placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Gaurangbhai Chimanbhai Kapadiya v. Union of India, [2024] 161 taxmann.com 304 (Guj.), has urged that looking to the huge delay and unsatisfactory reasons assigned by the petitioner in his application, the respondent has precisely rejected the same. It is also submitted that the reasons assigned by the respondent in the impugned order are legal and valid and hence, it is urged that the same may not be quashed and set aside. It is further contended that since for the A.Y. 2019-20 and 2020-21, the assessment orders are already passed and the appeals filed by the petitioner are already pending, there would be conflict of opinion on the same issue and hence, as per the decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eason assigned is that, the petitioner did not provide any evidence of initiating any legal action of filing complaint against the Auditor - M/s. KPSJ & Associates LLP, who did not provide proper advice. The final reason which has been assigned is relating to the aspect of genuine hardship, which finds place in the provision of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. It is stated by the respondent that the hardship cannot be considered in light of financial capacity and liability of the assessee since the assessee is not an individual but, is a body corporate having no financial hardship. 7. At this stage, we may incorporate the provision of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which reads as under: "119(2)(b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorise [any incometax authority, not being a [a Joint Commissioner (Appeals)] to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner would get the tax advantage/benefit by way of deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act. It is trite that there cannot be a straight jacket formula to determine the genuine hardship of an assessee and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the same cannot absolve the respondent from applying the mind by appreciating the claim of the petitioner and the explanation tendered for delay while examining the application filed under the provision of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 10. The legislature has conferred the power on the Board to condone the delay to enable the authorities to do substantial justice to the parties by considering the reasons assigned in the application on merits. The expression 'genuine hardship' has to be given considered meaning to help the assessee. There may be some cases where the delay is required to be condoned even if, it is inordinate, however, there is a meritorious claim of an assessee which cannot be thrown out at the threshold causing genuine hardship and injustice to an assessee. Ultimately, the provision of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is meant for doing a substantial justice and the same has to be kept in mi....