2024 (10) TMI 1153 - HC - Income Tax

Seeking condonation of delay for e-verification of the return of income - HELD THAT - As noticed that in the application u/s 119 (2) (b) of the Act, the assessee explained the reason for belated filing of return. The status of petitioner being Non-resident Individual, is not in dispute. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner was not available in India from 17.06.2020 to 09.08.2022, since the necessary documents were part of record. The due date of filing of return of income had expired on account of assessee s non availability and therefore, she had filed belated return of income u/s 139 (4). The contention of respondent in the affidavit that there is no evidence to prove the technical glitches faced by the assessee in our opinion is not a valid ground since it is very difficult to prove technical glitch. In our opinion, it is a case of genuine hardship faced by the assessee and there being sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the order passed by the respondent u/s 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be quashed and set aside. The aspect of undue hardship on part of the Petitioner has remained undisputed by the respondent. The order passed by the respondent u/s 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the application of the assessee on merits and to pass an order in accordance with Law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of application for condonation of delay for e-verification of income tax return.

Analysis:
The High Court heard a petition challenging the rejection of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India related to the condonation of delay for e-verification of the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The petitioner, an individual assessee, had filed her return of income claiming a deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sold a residential house, resulting in capital gains, and acquired another residential house within the prescribed time limit. However, due to technical glitches, she could not e-verify the return within 30 days. The petitioner, a non-resident individual residing in New Zealand, filed a belated return and sought condonation of delay under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act.

The petitioner contended that the rejection of the application was unjust and illegal. The delay was due to genuine reasons, including her age, non-availability in India, and technical issues. The claim for refund was supported by documents and submissions. The petitioner had sent a signed copy of ITR-V to the authorities as well. The petitioner's counsel argued that failure to condone the delay would cause genuine hardship. The respondent, opposing the petition, argued that the petitioner had sufficient time to e-verify the return and that there was no error in rejecting the application.

After considering the submissions, the Court found that the petitioner's non-resident status and unavailability in India were established facts. The Court noted that the respondent's contention of lack of evidence for technical glitches was not a valid ground, as proving technical glitches can be difficult. The Court concluded that there was genuine hardship faced by the petitioner and sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the order rejecting the application under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act and directed the respondent to reconsider the application on merits within 12 weeks.

In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the petition, quashing the rejection order and directing a reevaluation of the application for condonation of delay in e-verifying the income tax return.