Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (12) TMI 1918

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r directions for setting aside the order dated 27.10.2023 rejecting the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the Assessment Year- 2021-22 under the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). 3. The petitioner is a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) engaged in the real estate development business in Surat. Due date of filing the Return of Income for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 under section 139(1) of the Act was 31.10.2021. Due to COVID-19 outbreak the same was extended to 15.03.2022 vide Notifications dated 20.05.2021, 09.09.2021 and 11.01.2022. The petitioner filed the return of income of AY 2021-22 on 28.03.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nghani for the respondent has submitted that it is true that the petitioner filed his return of income for AY 2021-22 on 28.03.2022, which is delayed by 13 days. However, it is submitted that in view of the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, the date for filing of the return of income for the AY 2021-22 was extended to 15.03.2022 by the CBDT. However, the petitioner filed the return of income belatedly after a period of 13 days only when he realized that deduction would not be admissible under Section 80IBA of the Act. 6. While placing reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Lava International Ltd. vs. Central Board of Direct taxes, [2024] 163 taxmann.com 148 (Delhi), it is urged that the writ petition may not be enter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the applications filed belatedly or refund claim and claim of carry forward loss. 11. With regard to the 'genuine hardship' is concerned, the petitioner in his application has categorically mentioned as under: "3. Assessee submits that the reason for delay in filing return of income is due to covid pandemic and reasons for same are summarized as under: ● Due to Covid 19, Nation wide lock down from 25.03.2020 to 19.05.2020. ● Gradual reopening in the state of Gujarat with limited office staff. ● Again, rising of covid numbers during October to December, 2020. ● The Second wave of Covid from February to June 2021 due to new variant. ● Restriction....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onation of delay is required to be rejected. We do not subscribe to such a view in wake of the fact that the respondents while passing the order was also equally responsible for considering the reasons assigned by the petitioner in its application explaining the cause for belatedly filing the return after a period of 13 days. 14. We may, at this stage, refer to the decision of Vrushti Aulkumar Shah (supra), wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has set aside the order refusing to condone delay of 15 days, by recording as under: "5.4 In Sitaldas K. Motwani vs. Director, General of Income Tax and others [(2009) SCC online 2195], the Bombay High Court observed that words 'genuine hardship' used in section 119(2)(b) sho....