FRIENDS UNION FOR ENERGISING LIVES ( FUEL ) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXMPTIONS ) AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/2509/2024HC BombayHCBM01005393202428 February 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) dated December 14, 2023, was not perverse or erroneous. However, acknowledging the principle that condonation powers are meant to achieve substantial justice and that refusing condonation can defeat the cause of justice, the Court decided to grant the petitioner an opportunity to present their case more fully. The Court emphasized that refusing to condone delay can lead to a meritorious matter being dismissed prematurely, whereas condoning delay allows for a decision on merits. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to file a further affidavit explaining the delay and establishing genuine hardship within one week of the order's upload. The Commissioner was then directed to reconsider the application for condonation of delay and pass a final order on merits after hearing the petitioner, with at least three working days' notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Friends Union For Energising Lives (Fuel), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 14, 2023, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). This order rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on the petitioner's failure to justify the delay and establish genuine hardship. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present further justification for the delay and hardship, proposing to file an additional affidavit within one week of the order's upload. The revenue had no objection to this proposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated December 14, 2023, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was perverse or erroneous. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they should be granted an opportunity to justify the delay in filing Form 10 and to establish genuine hardship. They proposed to file a further affidavit to this effect within one week of the order being uploaded. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through Mr. Suresh Kumar, stated that they had no objection to the petitioner being given an opportunity to justify the delay and hardship.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 912-wp-2509-24.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2509 OF 2024 Friends Union For Energising Lives (Fuel)

….Petitioner V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Anr ....Respondents ---- Mr. Sham Walve i/b Mr. Tanzil Padvekar & Ms Tejal Kharkar for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents. ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 28st FEBRUARY 2024 P.C. : 1 Petitioner is impugning an order dated 14th December 2023 passed by respondent no.1 rejecting petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The application has been rejected on the basis that the onus to justify the delay in filing of Form 10 lies on assessee which, in the instant case, assessee had failed in substantiating the same and also establishing genuine hardship caused to it. 2 We have considered the application that was filed and we cannot conclude that the finding of respondent no.1 was perverse or erroneous. 3 At the same time, Mr. Walve submits that petitioner be given an opportunity to justify the delay in filing of Form 10 and also in establishing genuine hardship and for that purpose respondent no.1 be directed to reconsider the application filed for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10. Mr. Walve states within one week from the date this order is Meera Jadhav MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Digitally signed by MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2024.02.29 14:09:07 +0530

2/2 912-wp-2509-24.doc uploaded, petitioner will file further affidavit in support of condonation of delay explaining the delay and establishing genuine hardship. Mr. Suresh Kumar has no objection. We are conscious of the fact that the power to condone the delay in filing of Form 10 has been conferred to enable the authorities to do substantial justice to the parties. While considering these aspects, one should be mindful of the fact that no applicant stand to benefit by lodging delayed Form 10. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 4 Therefore, petition disposed with the following order: (a) Order dated 14th December 2023 is quashed, set aside and remanded. (b) Within one week from the date of this order being uploaded, petitioner will file further affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay, explaining the delay and establishing the genuine hardship. (c) Within three weeks thereafter, respondent no.1 shall reconsider the application for condonation of delay and pass a final order on merits after hearing petitioner, notice whereof shall be given atleast three working days in advance. (Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Meera Jadhav

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →