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 (1) TMI 950

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed a total profit of Rs. 75,66,345/-. The return of income together with the profit and loss account was filed on 30th July 2022 and processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Petitioner, accordingly, received an intimation on 6th April 2023. 4. It is Petitioner's case that much later it dawned upon Petitioner that no tax or stamp duty was payable on any award or agreement that was made under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act. Petitioner relies upon Section 96 of the said Act. Accordingly, Petitioner sought leave to file a revised return on or about 4th August 2023. The time prescribed for filing revised return expired on 31st December 2022. Hence, Petitioner made an application for condonation of delay and for leave to file revised return under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. This application of Petitioner came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated 22nd September 2023. The only reason for rejecting the application as we see is, "the assessee has not submitted any genuine hardship is caused due to delay in the application. Therefore, the application of the assessee for condonation of delay would not be entertained." 4. There cannot be a straight jacket fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... International Taxation), New Delhi 2010 (87) taxman.com 44 (Bombay)., relied upon by Mr. Walve, where paragraph nos. 13 to 17 read as under : "13. Having heard both the parties, we must observe that while considering the genuine hardship, Respondent No. 1 was not expected to consider a solitary ground so as to whether the petitioner was prevented by any substantial cause from filing  return within due time. Other factors detailed hereinbelow ought to have been taken into account. 14. The Apex Court, in the case of B.M. Malani v. CIT [2008] 10 SCC 617, has explained the term "genuine" in following words: "16. The term 'genuine' as per the New Collins Concise English Dictionary is defined as under: 'Genuine' means not fake or counterfeit, real, not pretending (not bogus or merely a ruse)'. 17. ****** 18. The ingredients of genuine hardship must be determined keeping in view the dictionary meaning thereof and the legal conspectus attending thereto. For the said purpose, another well-known principle, namely, a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong, may also have to be borne in mind....." (p. 624). The Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Electric .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 mala fides. 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. 16. Whether the refund claim is correct and genuine, the authority must satisfy itself that the applicant has a prima facie correct and genuine claim, does not mean that the authority should examine the merits of the refund claim closely and come to a conclusion that the applicant's claim is bound to succeed. This would amount to prejudging the case on merits. All that the authority has to see is that on the face of it the person applying for refund after condonation of delay has a case which needs consideration and which is not bound to fail by virtue of some apparent defect. At this stage, the authority is not expected to go deep into the niceties of law. While determining whether refund c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n account of delay from the date of filing the Return of Income, i.e., 14 September 1999 upto 30 April 2002. This was not the ground mentioned in notice dated 7 February 2006 given to the petitioner by the CBDT for rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Thus the petitioner had no occasion to meet the same. It appears to be an afterthought. However, as pointed out in paragraph 20 hereinabove, the delay in filing of an application if not coupled with some rights being created in favour of others, should not by itself lead to rejection of the application. This is ofcourse upon the Court being satisfied that there were good and sufficient reasons for the delay on the part of the applicant. 23. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that an acceptable explanation was offered by the petitioner and a case of genuine hardship was made out. The refusal by the CBDT to condone the delay was a result of adoption of an unduly restrictive approach. The CBDT appears to have proceeded on the basis that the delay was deliberate, when from explanation offered by the petitioner, it is clear that the delay was neither deliberate, nor on account of culpable negligen .....

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