9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi [PCIT] rejected the petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay of one day in filing the return for the Assessment Year [AY] 2016-17. 2. The petitioner's application was rejected essentially on two grounds. First, that the learned PCIT found that the delay in complying with the statutory timeline for furnishing the return of income was not due to any genuine hardship. Second, that the petitioner's application could not be entertained as it was filed beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 3. The petitioner has contested both of the aforesaid grounds, contending that the rejection on these grounds was unreasonable and arbitrary. Insofar as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Act on 22.10.2018 and on the same date (22.10.2018) filed an application under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act, for the condonation of the delay of one day in filing the return. 7. The Revenue has filed a counter affidavit contesting the allegation that there was any technical glitch in its portal. The Revenue has also provided the number of ITRs filed on an hourly basis on 17.10.2016. The Revenue also confirms that the petitioner had filed the tax audit report and Form 10CCB on 17.10.2016 at 06:28 PM and 06:42 PM, respectively. The Revenue points out that several other returns were filed by the assessees between 07:00 PM and 12 AM midnight on the same date and disputes the petitioner's claim of a technical glitch. 8. Whilst we ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith a duty to exercise such power. The learned PCIT, having been conferred the power to relax the conditions in cases of genuine hardship, was required to exercise that power in the petitioner's case, as the existence of genuine hardship was evident from the facts, as set out above. 11. The learned PCIT's decision that the petitioner's application could not be entertained as it was filed six years from the end of the assessment year is also patently erroneous. The impugned order records the petitioner's claim that it had filed its application under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act on 22.10.2018; however, since it had not received any response from the learned PCIT, it had sent repeated reminders. The application dated 06.02.2024, which was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
