2022 (6) TMI 1414 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay filing return - petitioner was required to upload a Form 10B alongwith return whereas because of an error on the part of Chartered Accountant erroneously Form 10BB was uploaded - whether mistake committed by CA should not be treated as a bonafide mistake? - HELD THAT - Even assuming that pursuant to certain communications filed with the return and the petition the petitioner had an opportunity to avail alternative remedy fact remains that application for condonation of delay was indeed maintainable. This is not a case of respondent that said application was not maintainable because petitioner did not avail the alternative remedy. The application for condonation of delay was also not dismissed on this ground and for this reason. This is trite that validity of an order of statutory authority must be seen on the basis of grounds mentioned therein and not for any other reason. A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi and others 1977 (12) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT opined that when validity of an order of the statutory authority is called in question the validity of order needs to be examined on the basis of grounds mentioned therein. The orders cannot be validated on the basis of counter affidavit or supplementary counter affidavit. The reasons assigned in the order dated 15/09/2020 alone is to be seen for the purpose of condonation of delay. We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay or mistake is on the part of Chartered Accountant was not taken into account at all in the said order. Thus we deem it proper to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back before the CIT (Exemption) Bhopal to reconsider and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing condonation of delay application due to uploading incorrect form, failure to discuss bonafide mistake, relevance of judgments on inadvertent mistakes, consideration of delay condonation application, validity of order based on grounds mentioned, remitting matter back for fresh decision by authority.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order dismissing their condonation of delay application due to uploading an incorrect form, Form 10BB instead of Form 10B, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that the mistake was due to the Charted Accountant's error and was rectified in subsequent years. The petitioner contended that the authority should have condoned the delay considering the bonafide nature of the mistake. The lack of discussion on the Charted Accountant's mistake in the impugned order was highlighted, citing judgments emphasizing substantial compliance and inadvertent mistakes.

The petitioner relied on judgments from various High Courts, including Punjab & Haryana and Delhi, emphasizing the need to consider inadvertent mistakes and the bonafide reasons behind delay condonation applications. The judgments stressed the importance of balancing technicalities with equitable considerations, especially for public charitable trusts. The petitioner also submitted a judgment of the Court supporting their argument for condonation of delay based on bonafide reasons.

The respondent opposed the prayer, arguing that the petitioner had the opportunity to avail alternative statutory remedies but failed to do so. However, the Court noted that the application for condonation of delay was maintainable, and the dismissal was not based on the petitioner's failure to pursue alternative remedies. The Court emphasized that the validity of a statutory order must be assessed based on the grounds mentioned in the order itself, as per Supreme Court precedent.

In light of the arguments presented and the legal principles invoked, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the authority for reconsideration. The Court directed the authority to decide the application afresh within 45 days from the date of the order, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. This decision was made to ensure that the Charted Accountant's mistake and the relevant legal precedents were duly considered in the decision-making process.