2023 (4) TMI 898 - HC - Income Tax

Delay in filing return of income - Petitioner is admittedly a foreign citizen and having OCI status since 2009 and he cannot be reasonably expected to keep himself aware and updated about the due date for filing return in India especially when he did not have any income taxable in India since the financial year 2010-11 - Petitioner submits that that the claim of the Petitioner that he was not aware of the due date or the process for filing the return of income has been negated on the sole ground that the Petitioner had filed his return for the assessment year 2011-12 within the time limit - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that ignorance of law is not an excuse. Assessee had filed his ITR for the assessment year 2011-12 within the time limit proves that the Assessee was aware of the process of filing the ITR. Consequently, this Court is in agreement with the finding of the Respondent No.2 that in the present case there was no genuine hardship or reasonable cause for late filing of the return. This Court is also of the opinion that the impugned order is clear and cogent and has been passed with the approval and sanction of Principal Chief Commissioner (IT). Further, there has been no violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner s contentions have been duly considered.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Authority to pass the order; Delay in filing return of income; Claim of refund; Lack of opportunity of hearing; Violation of principles of natural justice; Non-speaking order; Pre-determination of order; Ignorance of law as an excuse; Genuine hardship for late filing of return; Approval of the order by Principal Chief Commissioner (IT); Violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:

The petition challenges the order dated 16th December, 2020, issued under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of delay in filing return of income and refund claim. The petitioner argues that the authority to pass the order was vested in Respondent No.1 and could not be delegated. It is contended that the order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

The petitioner further asserts that the order is non-speaking and based on a report from 2019, while ongoing enquiries were indicated in letters from 2020, suggesting pre-determination. The petitioner claims ignorance of the due date for filing the return, citing previous filing seven years ago and being a foreign citizen with OCI status since 2009, not having taxable income in India since 2010-11. However, the court holds that ignorance of law is not an excuse and the previous timely filing indicates awareness of the process.

The court finds that the Assessee filing the ITR for the assessment year 2011-12 within the time limit shows awareness of the process, leading to the conclusion that there was no genuine hardship or reasonable cause for the late filing. It is noted that the impugned order was clear, cogent, and approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner (IT), with due consideration given to the petitioner's contentions. Consequently, the court dismisses the writ petition, ruling in favor of the respondents and upholding the order under challenge.