The Bombay High Court has condoned the delay in filing Income Tax Return (ITR) citing CA’s personal difficulties.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that the approach of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) appears to be quite mechanical, who ought to have been more sensitive towards the cause highlighted before him while praying for condonation of delay.
Background
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the orders passed by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai (PCIT), by which the application filed by the petitioners under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 praying for condonation of delay in filing the return of income has been rejected.
The petitioners in all the petitions are members of one family. Their accounts as well as all issues in relation to their income-tax returns were handled by a Chartered Accountant, who could not take timely steps on account of ill health of his spouse. The returns of the petitioners could not be filed within the stipulated time.
The petitioners approached the departmnet by an application filed under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act praying for condonation of delay in filing of their returns. The petitioner set out reason, which according to the petitioner, was bonafide and a legitimate cause, requiring the delay to be condoned in filing of the petitioners’ returns. The petitioners also submitted all the medical papers in support of their contentions that the case as made for condonation of delay was bonafide/genuine as reflected from the medical papers.
However, PCIT disbelieved the petitioners’ case and observed that the reasons are not genuine reasons preventing the petitioners from filing Income-tax returns. The PCIT has not recorded any reasons as to why the documents as submitted by the petitioner were disbelieved by him, and/or the case of the petitioners was not genuine. There is no contrary material on record, that the petitioner’s case was required to be rejected.
Arguments
The petitioners contended that they were fully dependent on the Chartered Accountant in all respects from the finalisation of the accounts as also in taking steps to file their respective returns. They contend that there was a genuine reason for the delay caused to the petitioners to file returns, as the Chartered Accountant was in a situation of distress due to the ill-health of his wife, keeping him away from the petitioner’s professional work.
Conclusion
The court while allowing the petition held that it can never be that technicalities and rigidity of rules of law would not recognize genuine human problems of such nature, which may prevent a person from achieving such compliances. It is to cater to situations the legislature has made a provision conferring a power to condone delay. These are all human issues and which may prevent the assessee who is otherwise diligent in filing returns, within the prescribed time.
Read More: Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Of Completed Assessment On Same Facts
The court observes that the PCIT is not consistent in the reasons when the cause which the petitioners had urged in their application for condonation of delay was common.
The court quashed the order and directed the income tax department to permit the petitioners to file returns with penalty, fees and interest, if any, within a period of two weeks.
Case Title: Jyotsna M. Mehta Versus Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-19 & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (L) No. 17939 Of 2024
Date: 04/09/2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Nishit Gadhi
Counsel For Respondent: Mamta Omle
