M/S SHREE LAKSHMI BALAJI INFRA PROJECTS vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT-1, ITO WARD 6(3)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 095

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,

THE CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU – 560 500 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2023-24, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns inter alia contending that the petitioner was hospitalized due to various health complications stemming from his chronic diabetes and lack of guidance from tax consultants, since the petitioner no longer liable for tax audit under section 44AB of the Act for the Assessment Year 2023-24 and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file the returns within the prescribed period. It was contended that the delay in filing the I.T. returns was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, the respondent committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, which deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Revenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have adopted a hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file I.T. returns within the prescribed period was due to the petitioner’s ill health and lack of guidance from tax consultants, since the petitioner no longer liable for tax audit under section 44AB of the Act for the Assessment Year 2023-24, who could file the I.T. returns subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his I.T. returns within the prescribed period on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, which clearly constituted genuine hardship on the part of the petitioner/assessee as contemplated in the said Circular dated 09.06.2015 and failure to appreciate this, has resulted in erroneous conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

Under these circumstances, adopting justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient grounds pleaded by the petitioner in support of his claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 15.10.2024, is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2023-24, is hereby allowed;