Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 463 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay - delay in filing the petition for refund of amount - according to the petitioner, his mother was undergoing medical treatment for uncontrolled hypertension and cardio myopathy for a long period and she died on 18.05.2016 and thereafter, he submitted the application, for return of refund of money - HELD THAT - In the present case, the authority has failed to pass such orders, within the specified period and only on the complaint made by the petitioner, the order of rejection came to be passed on technical grounds rejecting refund of the amount, instead of deciding the issue on merits. The reason for not condoning delay is not supported by any material and it may not cause any genuine hardship. Insofar as the authorities are concerned, the amount of ₹ 1,89,153/- (Rupees One Lakh and Eighty Nine Thousand and One Hundred and Fifty Three only) may be small, on the other hand, it is a big amount, in the view of point of common man. The petitioner has stated that he is precluded from submitting the documents in respect of the medical treatment taken for his mother. Insofar as the petition for condoning the delay is concerned, when reasons are adduced, the authorities should try to consider the same and deal with the case on merits, instead of disposing of the matter on technical grounds. If at all the petitioner has to be refunded as per the claim made based on the documents, the authorities should refund the amount and it cannot be rejected on technicalities. It is well settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that instead of rejecting the matters on technicalities, the Courts shall do substantive justice by deciding the case on merits. In such view of that matter, the respondent ought to have condoned the delay and decided the matter on merits. Impugned order passed by the respondent dated 04.06.2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration
Issues:
1. Delay in filing income tax return and refund application. 2. Request for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Rejection of condonation of delay by the respondent. 4. Legal principles regarding condonation of delay and substantive justice. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, an Income Tax assessee, filed income tax return for the assessment year 2014-15 seeking a refund of ?1,89,153. The application for refund was filed after the due date of 31.03.2016, citing the petitioner's mother's prolonged illness and subsequent demise as reasons for the delay. The respondent refused to condone the delay, stating that the petitioner's income for the relevant years indicated that the illness did not affect his business. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that the delay should have been condoned due to genuine hardship caused by the circumstances. 2. The respondent contended that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of his mother's illness causing the delay. The respondent maintained that the delay in filing the return and refund application was substantial, and without proper documentation, the impugned order rejecting condonation of delay was legally sound and should not be interfered with. 3. The court considered the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowers the respondent to condone delays, especially for claims not exceeding ?10,00,000 for any assessment year. It was highlighted that the authorities should not reject claims on technical grounds without considering the merits of the case. The court emphasized that the amount, though seemingly small to authorities, could be significant for an individual taxpayer, and substantive justice should prevail over technicalities. 4. Referring to established legal principles, the court emphasized the importance of deciding cases on their merits rather than dismissing them on technical grounds. The court set aside the respondent's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the respondent to evaluate the case on its merits and issue appropriate orders within a stipulated timeframe. The court's decision aimed to ensure that the petitioner's claim was not rejected solely based on technicalities but received due consideration for substantive justice. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the respondent's order and instructing a fresh consideration of the petitioner's claim for refund, emphasizing the importance of deciding cases on their merits and not on technical grounds.
|