M/S UDHYAMAN INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION ), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that, in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2018-19, the petitioner filed revised returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revised returns interalia contending the petitioner, inadvertently missed claiming the TDS Credit appearing in FORM 26AS for the aforesaid assessment year while filing the return of income and the same was addressed by the petitioner during the proceedings, to which the petitioner received no reply from the respondents and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file the revised returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner further submitted that, prior to filing application under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, the petitioner filed rectification letter under Section 154 of the I.T. Act, to which the petitioner did not received any response from the respondents. It was contended that the delay in filing the Income Tax returns was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, the respondent

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

A perusal of the impugned order/communication will indicate that the respondents have adopted hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file the revised I.T. returns within the prescribed period was due to inadvertently missing the claim of TDS Credit subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his revised income Tax 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 ground pleaded by the petitioner in support of its claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set-aside the impugned order/communication and condone the delay in filing the revised returns by the petitioner by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. 7. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order/communication at Annexure– A dated 13.11.2024, is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing Revised Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2018-19, is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the revised returns / request for rectification submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2018-19