9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arry out physical verification of the site until 13th February, 2021 and provide the Valuation Report until 16th March, 2021. In this context, it is important to note that the valuer was also a senior citizen aged 75 years. In our view, if for these reasons, the delay of 80 days in filing of the Return of Income by the Petitioner was not condoned, then definitely the Petitioner would be put to genuine hardship as the Petitioner was prevented by genuine and valid reasons for not filing the Return of Income on time. It can never be that technicality and rigidity of rules of law would not recognize genuine human problems of such nature, which may prevent a person from achieving certain compliance. It is to cater to such situations that the legislature has made a provision conferring a power to condone the delay. These are all human issues which prevented the assessee, who is otherwise diligent, in filing the Return of Income within the prescribed time. In our view, Respondent No. 1 failed to consider the same. Respondent No. 1 completely lost sight of the fact that not only was the Petitioner a doctor who was on covid duty but that the Petitioner faced various other problems due to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 20.10.2023, being Ex. N hereto and ordering and directing Respondent No. 1 to allow its application dated 31st March 2021 under section 119 (2)(a)(b) of the Act and consequently ordering and directing the Respondent No.4 to grant to the Petitioner the carry forward and set off of losses as claimed by it. 3. The Petitioner is an individual and is a doctor by profession. The Petitioner s Return of Income, under Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), for the Assessment Year 2020-2021, was due to be filed on 10th January, 2021 as per the extended due date, however, the Return of Income was filed on 31st March, 2021, declaring total income of Rs. 6,75,837/-. The Petitioner had a claim of carry forward of long term capital loss of Rs. 99,88,535/-. The Petitioner had claimed that, during the year under consideration, she had transferred two ancestral lands which were jointly owned by her with other family members. 4. The Petitioner made an Application dated 31st March, 2021 to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (the CBDT), Respondent No. 1, requesting it to condone the delay in filing the Return and allowing the claim of carr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a senior citizen, aged 75 years, having respiratory issues. Due to requirement of physical visit to the site by the valuer for the valuation of the property to ascertain the cost of acquisition for computation of capital gain under Section 49 of the Act, the valuation could not be completed before the due date of filing of return of income. 6. The Petitioner further clarified that, on 30th November, 2020, the Petitioner had lost her father due to Covid-19. Around the same time, other family members were also affected by Covid-19. Due to this misfortune, the Petitioner was not able to collect information required for valuation nor was able to coordinate with the tax consultant. This also resulted in delay in getting the valuation done which led to belated filing of income tax return. The Petitioner further stated that the valuer conducted the physical verification of the site in February, 2021and submitted a Valuation Report on 16th March, 2021. After obtaining the Valuation Report dated 16th March, 2021, the Petitioner s Chartered Accountant was able to calculate the capital gain/ loss on the transaction in respect of each co-owner. The total long term loss in case of the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax [2024] 166 taxmann.com 442 (Bombay) in support of his submissions. 13. Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, defended the Order dated 20th October,2023, and submitted that Respondent No. 1 had given valid reasons to refuse the condonation of delay on the part of the Petitioner in filing the Return of Income. 14. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 15. At the outset, it would be useful to refer to Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act, which reads as under:- (b):- the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorise [any income-tax authority, not being [a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or], a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law. 16. A perusal of the provisions of Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act shows that the power conferred therein upon Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the delay in filing the return of income. In our view, Respondent No. 1 completely lost sight of the fact that not only was the Petitioner a doctor who was on covid duty but that the Petitioner faced various other problems due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and that was the reason why the Petitioner could not file her Return of Income within time. 18. Further, in the impugned Order, Respondent No. 1 has also rejected the Application on the ground that the Petitioner, being an educated person, was well equipped with basic taxation law knowledge and, had accessibility to tax practitioners and, therefore, the claim of the Petitioner that she was not able to collect various information regarding income tax calculation, was not tenable. Again, we are afraid that we are unable to accept this reason of Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner has not claimed lack of accessibility to a tax practitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that, for various reasons, which arose due to the Covid-19 pandemic, she was not able to obtain the Valuation Report in respect of the property on time and, therefore, was not able to compute the capital loss and file the Return of Income. 19. In this view of the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s can be manifold like illness either of himself or his family members, as a result of which he was unable to timely discharge his professional obligation. There could also be a likelihood that for such reasons, of impossibility of any services being provided/performed for his clients when tested on acceptable materials. Such human factors necessarily require a due consideration when it comes to compliances of the time limits even under the Income Tax Act. The situation in hand is akin to what a Court would consider in legal proceedings before it, in condoning delay in filing of proceedings. In dealing with such situations, the Courts would not discard an empathetic /humane view of the matter in condoning the delay in filing legal proceedings, when law confers powers to condone the delay in the litigant pursuing Court proceedings. This of course on testing the bonafides of such plea as may be urged. In our opinion, such principles which are quite paramount and jurisprudentially accepted are certainly applicable, when the assessee seeks condonation of delay in filing income tax returns, so as to remove the prejudice being caused to him, so as to regularise his returns. In fact, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
