2024 (12) TMI 203 - HC - Income Tax

Condone the delay to file the return of income - delay of 380 days - genuine hardship or reasonable cause of delay - HELD THAT - Respondent ought to have taken into consideration the age of the petitioner as well as his medical condition so as to condone the delay in filing the return of income so as to enable the petitioner to claim the refund of the tax deducted at source on the sole transactions of sale of the immovable property during the previous year to the relevant Assessment Year. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not required to file return of income as the petitioner was residing out of India for the sale transaction of the N.A. plot during the year under consideration. In such circumstances when the petitioner has shown his difficulties bona-fidely honestly for not filing the return of income within the due date the respondent was required to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act in the facts of the case liberally so as to enable the petitioner to get the refund as the said amount of refund belongs to the petitioner but for filing the return of income by the petitioner within the due date. Petitioner is not entitled to any interest in view of the Circular No. 9 of 2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the petitioner therefore cannot be deprived of the amount of refund to which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to had the petitioner filed the return of income within the due date prescribed under the Act. Petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent to pass appropriate order to condone delay of 380 days in filing the return of income by the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting delay in filing income tax return for Assessment Year 2022-23 under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on genuine hardship.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a senior citizen, sold a plot and faced tax deduction at source. Due to residing in the U.S. and health issues, he missed the filing deadline for the return of income. The delay was 380 days, and the respondent rejected the condonation request citing lack of genuine hardship shown by the petitioner. The petitioner argued genuine difficulty due to health reasons and reliance on specific legal precedents supporting a liberal approach in such cases.

The respondent contended that the delay was due to negligence, not genuine hardship, as the medical visit dates were after the filing deadline. The respondent emphasized the availability of online filing facilities and deemed the petitioner's reasons as mere excuses for negligence. The respondent's order highlighted the absence of proper reasons for genuine hardship and the petitioner's failure to provide justification for the delay.

The court acknowledged the petitioner's age, medical condition, and genuine difficulties in filing the return within the due date. It noted that the petitioner was not obligated to file the return while residing abroad during the sale transaction. The court emphasized the need for a liberal approach by the respondent under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act to enable the petitioner to claim the refund rightfully belonging to him. The court highlighted the Circular No. 9 of 2015, stating the petitioner's right to the refund without interest due to the delay.

Conclusively, the court allowed the petition, quashed the respondent's order, and remanded the matter to the respondent to condone the 380-day delay in filing the return within 12 weeks. No costs were awarded in the matter.