2024 (10) TMI 1158 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filing return of income u/s 119 (2) (b) - delay of one day, as on the earlier day, the returns could not be uploaded on account of technical issue - HELD THAT - We are not persuaded to accept the reasoning as set out namely that Respondent No. 1 considered the report submitted by the AO, which contained a screen shot of the Assessment Order in which it was found that the Return has been processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act with demand due. It is for such reason Respondent No. 1 was of the opinion that the application of the Petitioner for condonation of delay needs to be disposed of. In our opinion, in passing the impugned order, there is complete nonapplication of mind, as also the reason set out to reject the petitioner s application is completely misconceived. The reason, that the return has been processed, can be no ground to reject the delay in filing of the petitioner s application seeking only one day s delay in filing of the return. Respondent would also not dispute that the delay in filing the Return being only of one day which was bona fide could not have been rejected for such reason. The principles which are paramount and jurisprudentially accepted, and as discussed by this Court in the case of Jyotsna Mehta 2024 (9) TMI 585 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT in our opinion, mandate their application in the present facts, for the delay to be condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order rejecting condonation of delay in filing income tax return under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The Petitioner filed the return with a one-day delay due to a technical glitch, leading to an application for condonation of delay under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the application based on the processing of the return under Section 143 (1) of the Act with demand due. The High Court found the reasoning flawed, emphasizing that a minor delay should not be rejected solely based on the processing of the return.

The High Court referred to a previous judgment where a similar delay was condoned, highlighting the importance of considering genuine human problems that may prevent timely compliance. The Court stressed the need for sensitivity and flexibility in such cases, especially when professional services are involved. The judgment emphasized the significance of recognizing valid reasons for delays and the need to remove prejudice caused by rigid application of rules.

Another case cited involved a two-day delay in filing a return, which was also ordered to be condoned. The Court reiterated the principles discussed in the previous judgment, emphasizing the necessity to allow for condonation of delays caused by genuine reasons. The High Court concluded that in the interest of justice, the Petition should be allowed, directing the Respondents to modify the intimation under Section 143 (1) of the Act to grant the requested deduction and refund.

The Petition was disposed of without costs, with the Court issuing appropriate writs to quash the order rejecting condonation of delay and directing the necessary modifications to the intimation under the Income Tax Act.