TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted with the work of filing of return being indisposed due to medical reasons - HELD THAT:- The court has held that the phrase genuine hardship should be construed liberally particularly when the legislature had conferred the power to condone the delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing the matter on merits. While considering this aspect of genuine hardship, the authorities are expected to bear in mind that ordinarily applicant applying for condonation of delay does not stand to benefit by lodging its claim late. In the case at hand where applicant was seeking refund of a large amount of Rs. 82,13,340/-. Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 30th November 2016 under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act). The due date for filing the income tax return was 30th September 2016. The time to file income tax return had been extended upto 17th October 2016. Hence there was delay of 43 days in filing the return of income. 3. By a letter dated 19th July 2019, petitioner requested respondent no. 3, Commissioner of Income Tax-22, to condone the delay in filing the return of income for A.Y.-2016-2017. Documents were submitted in support of their contention. Petitioner explained to respondent no. 3 that the delay was due to the concerned person who was entrusted with the work of filing of return being indisposed due to medical reasons. There was also certain other reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceed further, we should note that pursuant to Circular F No. 312/22/2015-OT dated 9th June 2015 issued by CBDT, application / claim for amount exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs shall be considered by the Board. We say this because the last sentence in the impugned order dated 24th December 2020 reads; This order is passed with the approval of the Member ( TPS Systems), CBDT. There is nothing to indicate that Board has considered petitioner s application. We also find that copy of the impugned order dated 24th December 2020 is sent to, (a) the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, (b) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-21, Mumbai, (c) Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell, Bengaluru, d) the applicant and (e) the Guar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on) Ors 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2195., where the court has discussed the phrase genuine hardship used in Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The court has held that the phrase genuine hardship should be construed liberally particularly when the legislature had conferred the power to condone the delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing the matter on merits. While considering this aspect of genuine hardship, the authorities are expected to bear in mind that ordinarily applicant applying for condonation of delay does not stand to benefit by lodging its claim late. More so, in the case at hand where applicant was seeking refund of a large amount of Rs. 82,13,340/-. Refusing to condone the delay can res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his own wrong, may also have to be borne in mind. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Electric Co. Ltd. V. CIT MANU/G1/0407/2001: 255 ITR 396 , was pleased to hold as under: The Board was not justified in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground that a case of genuine hardship was not made out by the petitioner and delay in claiming the relief was not satisfactorily explained, more particularly when the returns could not be filed in time due to the ill health of the officer was looking after the taxation matters of the petitioner. The Madras High Court in the case of Seshammal (R) v. ITO MANU/TN/0879/1998: (1999) 237 ITR 185 (Madras), was pleased to observe as under: This is hardly the manner i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. The approach of the authorities should be justice oriented so as to advance cause of justice. If refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
