2023 (4) TMI 1213 - HC - Income Tax

Application for condonation of delay in submitting the returns - condonation of delay u/s 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed intimating respondent No.1 that the delay in submitting the returns was on account of him being illiterate and due to the intervening marriage of his daughter and as such, it was not possible for him to submit the returns within the stipulated period - grievance of the petitioner the respondent No.1 has proceeded to subsequently pass the impugned order rejecting the application / request for condonation of the delay without appreciating that returns had already been processed and as such, the delay in submitting the returns has stood condoned by the respondents HELD THAT - As rightly contended by petitioner, despite noticing that the returns of the petitioner had already been processed and intimated to the petitioner on 09.05.2020 itself, the respondent No.1 clearly fell in error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay vide impugned order dated 28.07.2020, which is clearly unreasoned, non-speaking, laconic and cryptic order without any application of mind and without assigning valid or cogent reasons as to why application for condonation of delay, which had already stood condoned by the processing of the returns was liable to be rejected. At any rate, the reasoning contained in the impugned order for the purpose of rejecting the application for condonation of delay are without any application of mind and on this ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and request / application for condonation of delay submitted by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.Petition is hereby allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash impugned order dated 28.07.2020.
2. Petitioner requesting writ of mandamus for refund of TDS amount with interest.
3. Petitioner asking for writ of mandamus to direct respondents to pay costs.
4. Petitioner seeking additional reliefs as deemed fit by the Court.
5. Respondent's contention regarding processing of petitioner's returns.
6. Analysis of the impugned order and reasons for rejection of delay condonation.
7. Court's decision on setting aside the impugned order and granting reliefs.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking various reliefs, including a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 28.07.2020. The petitioner also requested a writ of mandamus for the refund of TDS amount with interest and costs, along with other reliefs deemed fit by the Court.

2. The material on record revealed that the petitioner had submitted income tax returns, followed by a request for condonation of delay under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, citing reasons for the delay. Despite the returns being processed and intimated to the petitioner, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the delay condonation application. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Court.

3. The respondent contended that the petitioner's returns had already been processed by the time the impugned order was passed. However, the Court observed that the rejection of the delay condonation application was erroneous, as the returns had been processed earlier, and there was no valid reason provided for the rejection.

4. The Court found the impugned order to be unreasoned, non-speaking, and lacking in application of mind. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 28.07.2020 and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for the refund of TDS paid within three months. The Court also instructed the respondents to process the refund request in accordance with the law, considering that the delay in submitting the returns had already been condoned in favor of the petitioner.

← Previous Next →