Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 709

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t in dispute that the petitioner has not filed the return within the time limit prescribed u/s 139 (1) and u/s 139 (4) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to refund on account of excess tax deducted at source. On perusal of computation of income placed on record at Annexure B , it is revealed that the petitioner otherwise was not liable to pay the tax and as such the entire tax deducted at source of interest and dividend is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. As in the case of Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. [ 2010 (9) TMI 23 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] as held that in matters of condonation of delay, a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a par .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Gujarat University and she is being assessed to tax since last about more than 30 years in respect of salary, dividend and interest income, etc. The petitioner is not being engaged in any economic activity during her entire life except for serving in the office of the advocate as a Clerk for some years. 5. The petitioner married at an advanced age and her husband was serving in a small drug Company but now residing at Mumbai and passing a retired life with simple standard of living. 6. The petitioner filed returns of income regularly for the previous last five years and details of which are as under: Sr. No. A.Y./ Date of filing Total taxable income declared and refund Amount Refundable 1 2021-22/ 24.12.2021 Rs. 4,61,840/- Rs. 32,841/- 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d to file the return of income for the year under consideration. 12. It was further submitted that due date of filing of return for the Assessment Year 2022-23 was 31.07.2022 under section 139 (1) and the last date was 31.12.2022 under section 139 (4) of the Act whereas the application for condonation of delay has been filed on 11.01.2024 and as such there was a delay of about 375 days i.e. from 01.01.2023 to 11.01.2024, which is required to be condoned by the respondent. 13. It was further submitted that the impugned order is passed without issuing any notice of hearing only on the ground that the petitioner had not provided any proof to prove the genuineness of the hardship which she faced in filing the return of income as per the said Ci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hardship as stated in Circular No.9/2015 on which, the reliance is placed. 18. A reference was made to the Circular to point out that in absence of any genuine hardship, the respondent is justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act. 19. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not filed the return within the time limit prescribed under section 139 (1) and under section 139 (4) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs. 52,592/- on account of excess tax deducted at source. 20. On perusal of computation of income placed on record at Annexure B , .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unt of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay in fact he runs a serious risk..... 22. Similarly, in the case of Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra), the Hon ble Bombay High Court has held that in matters of condonation of delay, a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities. 23. In view of the above settled legal preposition, the respondent ought to have considered the application filed by the petitioner under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act, in accordance with law, without adopting any pedantic technical approach. It is not in dispute from the facts on the record that the petitioner is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates