2024 (4) TMI 1209 - HC - Income Tax

Request of the Petitioner to condone the delay in filing the IT return u/s 119(2)(b) - HELD THAT - Illness of the petitioner as well as uploading of statutory Audit Report made on 31.03.2022 by the concerned Chartered Accountant made the delay which was beyond the control of the petitioner. When the petitioner filed his IT return the same could have been accepted condoning the delay by invoking Section 119 (2)(b) of the IT Act but the same has been rejected. But fact remains the Apex Court in a Suo Motu Writ Petition 2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER and this Court in 2021 (8) TMI 1429 - ORISSA HIGH COURT had been pleased to extend the limitation/ relaxation of general and special laws due to extra ordinary situation prevailing for COVID-19 Pandemic but however the CBDT vide Circular dated 09.06.2015 had provided the guidelines for condonation of delay in filing of the IT return could be made for refund and carry forward of loss and set up provided to follow the procedure referring Section 119 (2) (b) within a period of six years from the end of assessment year for which applications have been filed. The present dispute also covers the aforesaid guidelines which could have been exercised by the opposite party department. As such the condonation delay application filed by the petitioner should not have been rejected straightway in a cryptic confused and absurd manner without considering the orders passed by the apex Court as well as by this Court as mentioned above. Had the order of the apex Court been taken into consideration the authority could not have been rejected the condonation of delay application of the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting delay in filing IT return under Section 119(2)(b)

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the request to condone the delay in filing the IT return for the Assessment year 2021-22 under Section 119(2)(b). The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the return was due to reasons beyond his control, specifically citing his illness and the requirement of the Auditor's Report as per Section 44AB of the IT Act. The petitioner contended that the delay should have been condoned, especially considering the relief granted by the apex Court for condonation of delay due to extraordinary situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that the delay was unintentional and that the return could not be filed without condonation.

The Senior Standing Counsel for the I.T. Department argued that since there was a delay in filing the return, the order rejecting the delay was justified and did not require interference by the Court. However, the petitioner's counsel highlighted that the delay was due to the petitioner's illness and the requirement of the Auditor's Report, which were circumstances beyond the petitioner's control. The petitioner's transactions for the relevant year fell under the limit of Statutory Audit, and the delay in filing was a result of the illness and the requirement to upload the statutory Audit Report by the Chartered Accountant. The petitioner's counsel further pointed out the guidelines provided by the CBDT for condonation of delay in filing the IT return, which should have been considered by the department.

Upon reviewing the arguments and records, the Court found that the delay in filing the return was due to genuine reasons beyond the petitioner's control, such as illness and the necessity of the Auditor's Report. The Court noted that the apex Court and the High Court had extended limitations and relaxations for extraordinary situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court held that the rejection of the condonation of delay application by the Principal CIT was not justified, especially considering the guidelines provided by the CBDT and the orders of the higher courts. Consequently, the Court quashed the order of the Principal CIT and remitted the matter back to reconsider the return submitted by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction to reconsider the petitioner's IT return and make a decision in compliance with the law, emphasizing the need to consider the genuine reasons for the delay and the guidelines provided for condonation of delay in filing the IT return.