Sindhu Sewa Mandal Dharmarth Trust Through Kishan Chand Bhatia (President) vs. Income Tax Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH ON THE 3rd OF MARCH, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 3768 of 2025 SINDHU SEWA MANDAL DHARMARTH TRUST THROUGH KISHAN CHAND BHATIA (PRESIDENT) Versus INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Tushar Sodani - advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harsh Parashar, learned counsel for the respondent. ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax whereby the application under Section 119(2)(b) has been dismissed and 14.03.2024 (Anneuxre P-2) whereby the appeal has been dismissed by the I.T.A.T.. 2. Counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the issue raised in this petition has been decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No. 8083/2023, order dated 25.8.2023. The order is reproduced below:- " This petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution assails the order dated 06.12.2022 vide Annexure P/9 by which the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur-1 has declined to condone the 1 WP-3768-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5615 Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 05-03-2025 17:44:52 Signature Not Verified

delay in filing return qua assessment year. While doing so, the said authority rejected the ground of genuine hardship shown by petitioner and thus declined to extend the benefit of Section 119(2)(b) of IT Act r/w CBDT Instruction No.9 of 2015 dated 09.06.2015. 2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also final disposal. 3. Issue lies in a narrow compass and thus same is being decided with the consent of Revenue in absence of any reply. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is an individual assessee under the Income Tax Act and had allotted work of advertisement services to Future General India Insurance Company Ltd. during the financial year 2020-21. The gross receipts from the advertisement services amounted to Rs.17,95,581/- out of which total expenses incurred were Rs.12,96,680/- resulting in net profit credited - 3 - to the capital account of petitioner to the tune of Rs.4,98,901/-. Thus, no tax liability arose as per the tax slab after taking into account the rebate u/S 87A of IT Act. However, an amount of Rs.1,34,670/- was deducted by the said Company from the account of petitioner periodically in the form of TDS as per the statutory obligation u/S 194J of IT Act. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that petitioner initiated the process of claiming refund through her chartered accountant. However, it is alleged that due to technical glitches in the IT Department Portal even after pressing the final submit button, return was not submitted. However, the Chartered Accountant was under the impression that the return was successfully submitted and conveyed the same to petitioner. Resultantly, the return could not be filed within the extended time limit prescribed for filing ITR qua assessment year 2021-22 and; therefore, no refund of TDS could be processed. This impelled the petitioner to prefer an application u/S 119(2)(b) of the IT Act seeking condonation of delay in filing return and claiming refund of Rs.1,34,670/- due to excess TDS. 4.1 However, the grievance is that the said application has been rejected by the impugned order Annexure P/9 dated 06.12.2022 on the ground that no genuine hardship is reflected from the case since petitioner failed to produce any evidence that petitioner was - 4 - prevented from filing return of income due to technical glitches on the website of the Revenue. 4.2 Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Circular No.09/2015 of CBDT Annexure P/120 which empowers certain authorities under the IT Act to condone delay in filing return and claiming refund subject to satisfying certain 2 WP-3768-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5615 Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 05-03-2025 17:44:52 Signature Not Verified

conditions including that the case falls within the purviews of “genuine hardship” as contemplated by Section 119(2)(b) of IT Act. Further, attention is invited to the Affidavit filed by the Chartered Accountant of petitioner dated 05.03.2023 vide Annexure P/1 which reads thus:

AFFIDAVIT Affidavit of CA Priya Kapri W/O Mr. Romil Kapri, age 32 year, PAN -AOHPC1469G A.Y. 2021-2022. I, the above name deponent solemnly affirms and state on oath as under: 1. Deponent is the income tax return preparer of Mrs.Kusum Yadav. 2. Deponent is also the auditor u/s 44AB of Mrs. Kusum Yadav. The accounts are audited and audit report u/s 44AB is uploaded on e-portal on 31st of January 2022 i.e. before the due date and has been accepted by the Assessee on 2nd Feb 2022. 3. During the Assessment year 2021-2022, Deponent could not file return due to some technical glitch in portal at the time of filling of return. 4. Deponent was unable to recheck the return submission as due to Covic 19 situation his office was not functioning regularly and she lost sight of this situation. 5. The default in submission of return is not attributable to Mrs. Kusum Yadav. It was an unintentional slip and oversight. 6. Deponent has also filled the income Tax Return of Mrs. Kusum Yadav for next AY 2022-23. 7. Screenshot of technical glitch is not available with deponent.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE (PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE passed by PCIT Jabalpur-1 (Annexure P/9) suffers from non-application of mind and; therefore, - 6 - needs to be interfered with extending liberty to Revenue to apply its mind again in accordance with law. 9. 7. Consequently, petition stands allowed to the extent indicated below: (i) The impugned order dated 06.12.2022 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur-1 (Annexure P/9) stands quashed; (ii) The competent authority i.e. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur-1 is directed to reconsider the application preferred by petitioner u/S 119(2)(b) of IT Act after considering the Affidavit of Chartered Accountant and all other material on record and thereafter record his findings as regards existence or otherwise of “genuine hardship”. (iii) The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. (iv) No cost. " 3. In view of above, this petition succeed, Impugned orders dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) and 14.03.2024 (Anneuxre P-2) are hereby set aside. 4. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. 5. The matter is remanded back to Respondent NO. 1 to decide it afresh. 6. It is made clear that we have not observed any opinion on the merits of the case. VD

4 WP-3768-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5615 Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 05-03-2025 17:44:52 Signature Not Verified