9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1287 - HC - Income TaxRejection of ITR by the CPC as defective u/s 139(9) - Condonation of delay in filing the application for rectification of error committed in the return of income - removal of defects in return of income - Return of income filed u/s 44ADA declaring the professional income as well as income from trading in shares - HELD THAT - As decided in ADCC Infocom (P.) Ltd 2023 (4) TMI 245 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein the expression genuine hardship has been discussed, if the facts of the present case are examined, we are of the view that the petitioner has pointed out genuine hardship caused to the petitioner as a result of which the mistake committed in the return could not be rectified, as suggested by the CPC within the stipulated period. As in the present case one of the authorities of Revenue i.e. PCIT-1 passed an order on 07.09.2021 in favour of the petitioner, wherein as specifically observed by the said authority that, in view of the genuine hardship faced due to lockdown in Ahmedabad city due to the corona pandemic, the assessee could not comply with the notice issued by the CPC, Bangalore within the stipulated period and by giving the said finding, the order was passed by the said authority in favour of the petitioner. As observed hereinabove, the said authority was not having jurisdiction to pass said order and therefore the same was withdrawn. Be that as it may, the fact remains the one of the authorities of the Revenue considered the case of the petitioner and thereby granted relief in favour of the petitioner. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the case of the petitioner deserves consideration. Hence, petition is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order dated 12.10.2021. 2. Condonation of delay in filing the return of income. 3. Acceptance of the original return or allowance to file a fresh/revised return for A.Y. 2019-20. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of the Impugned Order Dated 12.10.2021 The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 12.10.2021, which dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income. The court found that the respondent authority had dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner failed to show genuine hardship. However, it was noted that another authority, PCIT-1, had initially condoned the delay considering the same grounds but later withdrew the order due to lack of jurisdiction. Issue 2: Condonation of Delay in Filing the Return of Income The petitioner argued that genuine hardship prevented the rectification of the return within the stipulated period due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The court referred to Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which allows for condonation of delay to avoid genuine hardship. The court cited precedents, including the Bombay High Court's decision in ADCC Infocom (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, emphasizing that "genuine hardship" should be construed liberally. The court concluded that the petitioner had shown genuine hardship due to the lockdown and technical issues on the CPC portal, warranting the condonation of delay. Issue 3: Acceptance of the Original Return or Allowance to File Fresh/Revised Return for A.Y. 2019-20 The court observed that the petitioner had made multiple attempts to rectify the return and had faced technical difficulties. The petitioner had also filed applications before various authorities seeking condonation of delay. Given the genuine hardship and the liberal interpretation of Section 119(2)(b), the court allowed the petition. The impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner was permitted to file a revised return of income for the assessment year 2019-2020. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned order dated 12.10.2021, condoned the delay in filing the return of income, and permitted the petitioner to file a revised return for the assessment year 2019-2020. The decision emphasized a liberal interpretation of "genuine hardship" under Section 119(2)(b) to ensure substantive justice.
|
