Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 549 - HC - Income TaxDeductions u/s 80IC - audit report in Form 10 CCB, due to inadvertence, had not been uploaded online on time - Power of CBDT to condone delay us 119 - Rectification u/s 154 - as argued inadvertence/ oversight in uploading Form No. 10 CCB by the auditor/ the Chartered Accountants of petitioner were circumstances beyond the control of petitioner and would constitute a reasonable cause for not uploading Form No. 10 CCB along with the return of income - Petitioner submitted hat refusal to exercise of powers u/s 119 of the Act by respondent no. 2 on a pedantic and narrow interpretation of the expression 'genuine hardship' to mean only a case of 'severe financial crises' is unwarranted. HELD THAT:- We would agree with Petitioner that no assessee would stand to benefit by lodging its claim late. Moreso, in case of the nature at hand, where assessee would get tax advantage/benefit by way of deductions u/s 80IC of the Act. Of course, there cannot be a straight jacket formula to determine what is ‘genuine hardship’. In our view, certainly the fact that an assessee feels that he would be paying more tax if he does not get the advantage of deduction under Section 80IC of the Act, that will be certainly a ‘genuine hardship’. The Court in K. S. Bilawala & Ors. [2024 (1) TMI 950 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that the phrase ‘genuine hardship’ used in Section 119(2)(b) of the Act should be considered liberally. CBDT should keep in mind, while considering an application of this nature, that the power to condone the delay has been conferred is to enable the authorities to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing the matters on merits and while considering these aspects, the authorities are expected to bear in mind that no applicant would stand to benefit by lodging delayed returns. The court also held that 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 the delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Legislature has conferred power on respondent no. 3 to condone the delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing the matter on merits. Routinely passing the order without appreciating the reasons why the provisions for condonation of delay has been provided in the act, defeats the cause of justice. In the circumstances, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order. Application filed by petitioner for rectification of the intimation rejected - We have to note our disappointment with the conduct of respondent no. 1 in not even replying to petitioner. Respondent no. 1 was duty bound to pass orders on the application which has been pending for almost 6 years, instead of making such baseless statements in the affidavit in reply. Perhaps, respondent no. 1 thinks that he or she is not accountable to any citizen of this country. Copy of this order shall be placed before the PCCIT to take disciplinary action against respondent no. 1 for dereliction of duty. In view of the above, respondent no. 1 shall on or before 31st May 2024, dispose the pending application under Section 154 of the Act on merits and before passing any order shall give a personal hearing to petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated at-least five working days in advance.
|