9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 774 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay in filing form 10 CCB u/s 119 - Petitioner prayed for condonation of delay for revised Income Tax Return to be accepted as a return filed u/s 139 (5) - HELD THAT - The management of the company did not know about his personal problems until socially unacceptable conduct came to light when his wife barged into the Registered Office of the company along with her children. Petitioner further stated that it was only after the receipt of notice u/s 142 (1) calling for information and details pursuant to notice issued u/s 143 (2) the company realised that the original tax filings on 7th November 2017 were based on incorrect figures. Petitioner has also submitted that in the midst of all this the director of the company was also irregular in attending the office due to his mother s deteriorating ill health during the period from June 2017 to March 2018. The Petitioner has submitted that during this period his mother was operated for 3 major spine problems at Hinduja Hospital. His mother was completely bedridden after the surgeries and hence the director could not attend the office on a regular basis. Petitioner also submitted that since the business of the company had expanded and there was need for an ERP system for the company to manage its operations the company during F.Y. 2016-17 implemented a new ERP accounting programme system in its office. During this phase the company experienced a high attrition rate impacting accounting work on day to day basis leading to delayed preparation of financial information. In these circumstances the Petitioner has sought for condonation of delay. Such factors which are purely fortuitous and purely human attributes necessarily required due consideration when it comes to compliances of time limits prescribed under the IT Act. As observed by this Court in Jyotsna M. Mehta 2024 (9) TMI 585 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT the situation in hand would be akin to how a Court would consider in the legal proceedings before it in condoning delay in filing of proceedings. Resultantly the impugned Order dated 21st September 2023 is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to permit the Petitioner to file returns with penalty fees and interest if any within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this Order is available.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issues considered in this judgment were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10CCB and Revised Income Tax Return Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework for condonation of delay is provided under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which allows for the condonation of delay if the applicant can demonstrate "genuine hardship." The Court referenced its previous decision in Jyotsna M. Mehta v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax & Others, which emphasized the need for a sensitive approach when considering condonation requests due to human problems that may prevent timely compliance. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court analyzed the reasons provided by the Petitioner, which included the irregular attendance of the CFO due to personal issues, the director's inability to attend office due to his mother's health problems, and the implementation of a new ERP system causing operational disruptions. The Court considered these factors as fortuitous and human attributes that warranted consideration for condonation of delay. Key Evidence and Findings: The Petitioner argued that the CFO's personal issues and the director's family health problems significantly impacted the company's ability to file returns on time. Additionally, the transition to a new ERP system and high staff attrition rates contributed to the delay. The Court found these explanations to be credible and indicative of genuine hardship. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from its previous judgment in Jyotsna M. Mehta, emphasizing that technicalities should not overshadow genuine human difficulties. The Court concluded that the reasons provided by the Petitioner were sufficient to establish genuine hardship, justifying the condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b). Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondent argued that the reasons provided by the Petitioner were not convincing, as the company should have had mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with statutory deadlines. However, the Court rejected this argument, noting that the circumstances were beyond the company's control and warranted a humane consideration. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the delay in filing the revised return and Form 10CCB was sufficiently explained by the Petitioner, and thus, the delay should be condoned. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court stated: "In dealing with such situations, the Courts would not discard an emphatic/ humane view of the matter in condoning the delay in filing legal proceedings when the law confers powers on the authority to condone the delay in the litigant pursuing Court proceedings." Core Principles Established:
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court quashed the impugned order dated 21st September 2023, which rejected the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay. The Respondents were directed to permit the Petitioner to file returns with penalty, fees, and interest, if any, within two weeks from the date of the order. All contentions on the merits of the returns were expressly kept open.
|
