2017 (9) TMI 1160 - HC - Income Tax

Belated filing of return - reasons for delay - case of genuine hardship - fit case for condone the delay under Section 119 (2)(d) - application filed for condonation of delay in filing the return for the assessment year 1996 - 97 which appears because the reason claim on account of the jurisdictional hierarchic - Held that - the third respondent had issue notice to the petitioner to sent a return petition on or before 21.10.2003. This direction was complied with by the petitioner by submitting his returns submits which has been rejected different by the impugned order. Firstly the impugned order, the third respondent is not even adverted to the petitioner belated for the assessment year 1997 - 98 was considered as the relief granted. This so -- of the said year under Section 119(2)(b) should be equally acceptable for the assessment year 1996 - 97 and merely because on account of jurisdiction hierarchic another authorities superior to the authority to decide the matter of the year 1997 - 98 to take a decision, the such decision cannot be contrary to the decision arrived at by another authority exercising analogous powers under the Income Tax Act. Further, more I find that the petitioner is an individual assessee having been granted relief for the assessment year 1997 - 98. No prejudice would be caused to the some yardstick same applicable - for the assessment year 1997 - 97 also.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 under Section 119(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for the assessment year 1996-97 by the third respondent. The petitioner had filed returns for both 1996-97 and 1997-98 on 31.03.2001, which were belated by two years. The delay in filing for 1997-98 was condoned, and the petitioner was granted a revision of ?17,076. However, the application for condonation of delay for 1996-97, claiming ?1,63,190 on account of jurisdictional hierarchic, was rejected by the third respondent in April 2003. The petitioner contended that the third respondent was not the competent authority to pass the impugned order. The High Court found that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, setting it aside and remitting the matter back to the respondents for fresh consideration, directing them to dispose of it in accordance with the law and on its own merits after affording an opportunity to the petitioner within four weeks.

The High Court noted that the impugned order did not consider the relief granted for the assessment year 1997-98 when deciding on the application for condonation of delay for 1996-97. The Court emphasized that the relief granted for 1997-98 under Section 119(2)(b) should equally apply to 1996-97. The Court found that the petitioner, an individual assessee, had been granted relief for 1997-98, and applying the same yardstick for 1996-97 would not cause prejudice. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the first respondent to process the returns for the assessment year 1996-97 in accordance with the law, without imposing any costs.