9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 520 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay - Held that - Delay in the present case is only of one day, we find that the approach of the Respondents in refusing to condone the delay is a pedantic which, if allowed to stand, would result in great hardship to the Petitioners for no fault of the Petitioners. The Petitioners have also produced the hard copy to show that in fact such return in Form - 1 were filed on 31.03.2008 which was admittedly the last date for filing such returns. This factual aspects have not been disputed by the Respondents. Needless to say, we have not examined the merits of the claim of the Petitioners based on the returns filed by the Petitioners but only considered whether the delay in filing such returns deserves to be condoned. Such returns and the claim of the Petitioners have to be examined by the Respondents on its own merits. Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing income tax return for Assessment year 2006-2007. 2. Condonation of delay application under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. 4. Judicial precedents on condonation of delay. Issue 1: Delay in filing income tax return for Assessment year 2006-2007 The petitioner filed their income tax return in hard copy on 31.03.2008, one day after the due date. The electronic upload to the server of the Income Tax Department happened on 01.04.2008. This delay led to the non-examination of the return, resulting in the refund not being granted. An application for condonation of delay was filed on 06.04.2009 under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, which was later dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.12.2009. The petitioner challenged this order through the present writ petitions. Issue 2: Condonation of delay application under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the server's fault, causing the electronic transfer to occur a day late. They contended that a sufficient cause existed to condone the delay, which was erroneously refused by the respondent. The petitioner cited genuine hardship as the reason for the delay and emphasized that the delay was only of one day. The respondent's assumption of a 17-month delay was challenged. The court noted that the delay was minimal and that a justice-oriented approach should be adopted in matters of condonation of delay. Issue 3: Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act Sections 139 and 239 of the Income Tax Act allow for filing returns and refund claims within one year from the end of the assessment year, i.e., on or before 31.03.2008. Section 119(2)(b) empowers the CBDT to admit applications beyond the prescribed time limits. The court found that the respondent failed to exercise this power to condone the delay in filing returns and granting refunds based on irrelevant reasons. Issue 4: Judicial precedents on condonation of delay The court relied on precedents emphasizing a justice-oriented approach in condoning delays and avoiding a pedantic attitude towards technicalities. Considering the minimal one-day delay in the present case, the court held that the respondent's refusal to condone the delay was pedantic and would cause undue hardship to the petitioners. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, making the rule absolute in both petitions with no order as to costs. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the court's interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the application of judicial precedents in deciding the case.
|
