9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e DCIT, Circle-3, Pune. Petitioner immediately provided details about the invalid return and requested him to activate the action on the Income Tax Portal so as to enable Petitioner to rectify the return of income for AY 2017-2018. We are satisfied that the delay in not responding to the notice is received under Section 139(9) of the Act, was neither deliberate nor on account of culpable negligence or any mala-fides. The issue is only of correcting the name of Petitioner in the returns so that there is no mismatch between the PAN number and name of the company. We, therefore, direct Respondents to permit Petitioner to correct its name in the returns for AY 2017-2018 from Optra Technologies Private Limited to Optra Health Private Limited . Therefore, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23rd December 2022. Within two weeks of this order being uploaded, the required portal will be opened for Petitioner to do the needful, under advice to Petitioner. We hasten to add that we have not examined the contents of the returns filed by Petitioner or claims which have been made in the returns. That will be subject of appropriate assessments/proceedings under the Act. - K.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idual to discharge its legal and other obligations. The argument that the company's CFO was irregular in his duties and hence the company could not discharge its legal obligation, is not an acceptable view. If such an argument is permitted, the companies can get away from very serious obligations too. Based on facts of the case, it is observed that the applicant has failed to prove any genuine hardship, which was beyond it's control, with necessary evidence. 5. Mr. Suresh Kumar wanted time to file an affidavit-in-reply. In our view, no purpose will be served by filing a reply because the impugned order speaks for itself. Moreover, the petition was served in early November 2023 and the department had almost six weeks to file a reply if they really wanted to oppose the petition. 6. We are not happy with the reason given in the impugned order rejecting Petitioner s application for condonation of delay. 7. Petitioner s explanation for not meeting with the time prescribed for correcting the mismatch is that, the first notice of invalid return under Section 139(9) of the Act was sent on registered email-ID of one Mr. Prasad Sathe on 30th May 2018 and the final notice of invalid r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In view of this background, it is obvious that the error for the mismatch was not caused due to any deliberate or culpable negligence or any mala-fides on the part of Petitioner. 9. While considering the genuine hardship, the PCCIT was not expected to consider a solitary ground as to whether the assessee was prevented by any substantial cause from filing the corrections within a due time. Other factors also ought to have been taken into account. The phrase genuine hardship used in Section 119(2)(b) of the Act should have been construed liberally. The Legislature has conferred the power to condone the delay to enable the authorities to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing the matters on merits. The expression genuine has received a liberal meaning in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and while considering this aspect, the authorities are expected to bear in mind that ordinarily the applicant, applying for condonation of delay, does not stand to benefit by lodging erroneous returns. Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rns could not be filed in time due to the ill health of the officer who was looking after the taxation matters of the petitioner.... (p. 737). The Madras High Court in the case of R. Seshammal (P.) Ltd. (supra), was pleased to observe as under: This is hardly the manner in which the State is expected to deal with the citizens, who in their anxiety to comply with all the requirements of the Act pay monies as advance tax to the State, even though the monies were not actually required to be paid by them and thereafter, seek refund of the monies so paid by mistake after the proceedings under the Act are dropped by the authorities concerned. The State is not entitled to plead the hyper-technical plea of limitation in such a situation to avoid return of the amounts. Section 119 of the Act vests ample power in the Board to render justice in such a situation. The Board has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the petitioner's request for refund. (p.187) 15. The phrase genuine hardship used in section 119(2) (b) should have been construed liberally even when the petitioner has complied with all the conditions mentioned in Circular dated 12-10-1993. The Legislature has conferred the power to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition, we are satisfied that respondent No. 1 did not consider the prayer for condonation of delay in its proper perspective. As such, it needs consideration afresh. 10. This was followed by this Court in Artist Tree (P.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [2014] 52 taxmann.com 152 (Bombay) , relied upon by Mr. Walve, where paragraph nos. 19, 21 and 23 read as under : 19. The circumstance that the accounts were duly audited way back on 14 September 1997, is not a circumstance that can be held against the petitioner. This circumstance, on the contrary adds force to the explanation furnished by the petitioner that the delay in filing of returns was only on account of misplacement or the TDS Certificates, which the petitioner was advised, has to be necessarily filed alongwith the Return of Income in view of the provisions contained in Section 139 of the said Act read alongwith Income Tax Rules, 1962 and in particular the report in the prescribed Forms of Return of Income then in vogue which required an assessee to attach the TDS Certificates for the refund being claimed. The explanation furnished is that on account of shifting of registered office, it is possible that TDS Certi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to consider the Return of Income and deal with the same on merits and in accordance with law. 11. In the circumstances, having considered the averments in the petition, we are satisfied that the delay in not responding to the notice is received under Section 139(9) of the Act, was neither deliberate nor on account of culpable negligence or any mala-fides. The issue is only of correcting the name of Petitioner in the returns so that there is no mismatch between the PAN number and name of the company. 12. We, therefore, direct Respondents to permit Petitioner to correct its name in the returns for AY 2017-2018 from Optra Technologies Private Limited to Optra Health Private Limited . Therefore, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23rd December 2022. Within two weeks of this order being uploaded, the required portal will be opened for Petitioner to do the needful, under advice to Petitioner. 13. We hasten to add that we have not examined the contents of the returns filed by Petitioner or claims which have been made in the returns. That will be subject of appropriate assessments/proceedings under the Act. 14. Petition disposed. No order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
