2024 (8) TMI 289 - HC - Income Tax

Delay filling IT returns - Seeking condonation of delay u/s 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act for claiming the refund - petitioner, submits that the petitioner, a senior citizen now aged about 72 years, faced genuine hardship, and thus, ought to have been granted benefit under Section 119 (2) (b) - HELD THAT - This Court finds that the senior citizen/considerable age, depression, as mentioned coupled with the fact that the petitioner is not on the wrong side of the law/revenue collections as he is not facing any kind of scrutiny or action by the respondents, and thus, he deserves to be dealt with leniently in this peculiar factual matrix. This Court has also heavily relied on the fact that the tenure of filing the returns sought to be filed in the present case begins about 15 years ago, the impugned order is of 2016, this writ petition is pending for last 07 years and the age of the petitioner is around 72 years, which do not warrant complete remand of the matter. The core law of Section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Act read with CBDT Circular No.09/2015 dated 09.06.2015, both reproduced above, clearly reflect that if there is a genuine hardship, then a condonation of upto six years can be permitted. Considering the overall perspective and peculiar facts of this case, including the age of the petitioner, the Section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Act read with CBDT Circular No.09/2015 dated 09.06.2015, which prescribes 06 years delay condonation on genuine hardship and the precedent law laid down in the matter on B.M. Malani s case 2008 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT this Court is of the firm opinion that the depression, old age, long pendency of the issue and the petitioner s status as a small-scale surveyor with no negativity in revenue collection by the tax authorities (like scrutiny) attached, have to be considered as genuine hardship. WP allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Genuine hardship as a criterion for condonation.
3. Applicability of CBDT Circular No.09/2015 dated 09.06.2015.
4. Precedent law and its relevance in the present case.

Detailed Analysis:

Condonation of Delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner, an Insurance Surveyor aged 72, filed an application on 12.05.2016 seeking condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act to claim a refund for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15. The application was rejected by the respondents on 27.02.2017. The petitioner argued that genuine hardship due to old age and depression warranted condonation.

Genuine Hardship as a Criterion for Condonation:
The petitioner's counsel cited the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.M. Malani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., emphasizing that "genuine hardship" must be interpreted purposively. The court noted that genuine hardship involves genuine difficulty and that statutory authorities must act judiciously within the statute's confines. The petitioner argued that his senior age and depression constituted genuine hardship.

Applicability of CBDT Circular No.09/2015 dated 09.06.2015:
The respondents contended that Section 119(2)(b) could only be considered if there was genuine hardship and that the maximum period for condonation was six years as per the CBDT Circular. They cited the Patna High Court judgment in Deep Narayan Gupta Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, which emphasized that genuine hardship must be determined case-by-case and that deliberate late filing to avoid scrutiny does not constitute genuine hardship.

Precedent Law and Its Relevance in the Present Case:
The court considered the petitioner's argument and the precedent set by the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Electric Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which allowed condonation due to the principal officer's severe illness. The court noted that the petitioner's age, depression, and lack of evidence of manipulation or scrutiny by tax authorities warranted leniency.

Conclusion:
The court found that the petitioner's senior age, depression, and status as a small-scale surveyor constituted genuine hardship. The court quashed the impugned order dated 27.02.2017 and directed the authority to accept the returns and decide the claim while adhering to the six-year limit prescribed in the CBDT Circular. The writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Final Order:
The impugned order dated 27.02.2017 is quashed and set aside. The authority shall accept the returns and decide the claim of the petitioner within the six-year limit from the date of the petitioner's application, treating it as a case of genuine hardship. The writ petition is allowed, and all pending applications are disposed of.