WP/470/2024

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Room no.601, 6th Floor, Cumballa Hill MTNL TE Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400 026. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle 2, Mumbai Room no.603, 6th Floor, Cumballa Hill MTNL TE Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400 026. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Room no.13, 5th Floor, Jeevan Vihar Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001. … Respondents Mr. Ajay Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh R. Gulabani, for respondents. _______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. RESERVED ON : 18 November 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 20 December 2024 _______________________ Judgment (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.) Mayur Adane, PA Page 1 of 34 PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2024.12.21 11:33:35 +0530

Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It challenges an order dated 28 September 2023 (“impugned order ” for short) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) i.e., respondent no.

The issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether Mayur Adane, PA Page 2 of 34

The petitioner is a trust registered with the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai vide registration No. E-2145, dated 1 January 2004 under section 12A of the IT Act, also having another registration No. INS- TR 38017, dated 29 January 2004. The respondent No.1 is the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) who passed the impugned order.

The objects as stipulated in the Trust Deed dated 17 October 2003 of the petitioner concerns activities to establish, promote, set up, run, maintain and grant-aid and other financial assistance to educational institutions for development of human knowledge. In furtherance of such objects of the trust, the petitioner established D. G. Khetan International School, B. H. Gadia International School, B. K. Gadia, A Level Junior Mayur Adane, PA Page 3 of 34

The petitioner trust filed its Nil return of income dated 12 October 2017 under Section 139(1) of the IT Act along with Form 10B for the A.Y. 2017-2018, after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act. The petitioner also filed its revised return on 29 December 2018, claiming exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act.

During the course of assessment proceedings, the petitioner uploaded a revised computation of income dated 09 November 2019 with a view to rectify certain computation mistakes namely (i) Claim of depreciation of Rs. 19,25,787 on fixed assets under Section 11(6) of the IT Act; (ii) Expenses claimed towards capital expenditure along with deduction of Rs. 57,28,869/- i.e., by way of exercising option under clause (2) to ‘Explanation 1’ to Section 11(1) of the IT Act, being interest amount accrued but not received. The assessment in the petitioner’s case was completed on 11 December 2019 resulting in the assessment order of the said date.

The petitioner filed Form 9A on 20 December 2019 on the Income Tax portal, alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the said Form 9A. According to the petitioner, it was able to file the Mayur Adane, PA Page 4 of 34

Pursuant to the above, the petitioner filed its submission before Mayur Adane, PA Page 5 of 34

Further to the above, the impugned order dated 28 September 2023 passed under section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2017-2018 was passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A. Such rejection by the said respondent was mainly on the ground that (a) wrong claim was made by the petitioner in the return of income dated 12 October 2017 filed under Section 139(1) of the IT Act in regard to depreciation of Rs. 19,25,787 and capital expenditure which was accordingly disallowed to the extent of Rs.57,28,869/- as claimed by the petitioner under Section 11(1)-clause 2 of ‘Explanation 1’ of the IT Act; (b) Form 9A along with application for Mayur Adane, PA Page 6 of 34

The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order filed the present petition before this Court on 19 December 2023, praying for setting aside the impugned order passed by the juri ictional assessing officer dated 28 September 2023 in the light of the facts and grounds set out in the petition and the submissions advanced before us. C) Rival submissions:- Case of the Petitioner:

Mr. Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset, submitted that the impugned order which rejected the case of the petitioner in filing Form 9A belatedly and also disallowing the claims made by the petitioner, is irrational, unfair, unjust and illegal.

Mr. Singh would then place reliance on the revised computation of income submitted by the petitioner on 9 November 2019, during the course of assessment proceedings, to respondent no.

By this, the petitioner attempted to rectify certain computation mistakes namely claim of depreciation of Rs. 19,25,787/- on fixed assets under section 11 (6) of the IT Mayur Adane, PA Page 7 of 34

Mr. Singh would contend that the impugned order has completely misconstrued and misinterpreted the Circulars issued by CBDT, under section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act, from time to time. In this regard, he would place reliance on Circular No.7 dated 20 December 2018 issued by the CBDT, whereby the belated Form 9A was directed to be admitted for A.Y. Mayur Adane, PA Page 8 of 34

Mr. Singh then placed reliance on another Circular of CBDT No. 30/2019 dated 17 December 2019 which also extended the time limit for filing Form 9A, in respect of AY 2017-2018. So also, the CBDT vide Circular No.6 of 2020 dated 19 February 2020 extended such time limit for A.Y. 2018-2019 including powers authorizing the commissioner of income tax to consider application of condonation of delay in filing such Form 9A & 10 for the respective years. Relying on the said Circular issued by the CBDT from time to time, he would urge that the said Circulars specifically authorised the Commissioners of Income Tax to admit belated application in Form 9A and Form 10, in respect of such assessment years as stated in the said Circulars. This was in situations where such Form 9A was filed after expiry of the time allowed under the relevant provisions of the IT Act. He would submit that the impugned order completely fails to address this vital aspect and hence suffers from non-application of mind.

Mr. Singh would then submit that the impugned order is wholly unjust, unfair let alone improper and untenable. This is in as much as it fails to consider that Form 9A along with application for condonation of delay was, in fact, filed by the petitioner on 20 December 2019 on the Income Tax Mayur Adane, PA Page 9 of 34

Mr. Singh would then refer to and rely upon Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act in support of his reliance on the aforementioned Circulars issued by the CBDT from time to time. He points out that there is clear reference to Section 119(2)(b) in all of the Circulars of CBDT mentioned (Supra). This is to contend that the said Section specifically empowers the income tax authorities to consider any application or claim which would include return of income filed for any exemption after expiry of the stipulated period. This is to mitigate the genuine hardship caused to the assessees in appropriate situations and circumstances. Thus, the impugned order passed under section 119(2)(b) rejecting the case of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A, failed to correctly construe and interpret such statutory provisions under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act, causing irreparable prejudice to the petitioner-Trust. Mayur Adane, PA Page 10 of 34

Mr. Singh would further submit grievance of the petitioner is genuine and bona fide for the respondent No.1 to have exercise its discretion duly conferred under Section 119(2) of the IT Act in condoning delay of the petitioner in filing Form 9A. In this context, Mr. Singh would rely on a chart submitted during the course of hearing, which reads thus: Sr. No. Particulars As per assessment order As per revised computation by Assessee Reference 1 Total Income as per Income & Expenditure 206220844 206220844 0 2 Interest accrued – Amount deemed to be applied during previous year – clause (2) of ‘Explanation 1’ to section 11(1) -5728869 Note No 1 Net Total Income 206220844 200491975 3 Revenue Expenditure Rs. 158354099/- Less: Depreciation of Rs. 19,25,787/- -156428312 -156428312 Note No 2 4 Capital Expenditure (Rs. 1,95,20,255/-) Less : Disallowed Rs.66,59,725/- -12860530 -12860530 Note No 3 Gross total Income 36932002 31203133 5 Less : Accumulated U/s 11(1) @ 15% 30933127 30933127 Taxable Income 5998875 270006 Note No.1 Deduction claimed for the interest accrued on FDR not received during the year u/s 11(1) of the Income Tax Act Page No. 70 Mayur Adane, PA Page 11 of 34

Mr. Singh in support of the petitioner’s case would rely on a 1 [2024] 158 taxmann. Com 311 (Delhi). Mayur Adane, PA Page 12 of 34

The petitioner would then refer to the decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions)

In the said case, this Court was dealing with a situation where the assessee-trust belatedly submitted Form 10B along with its return on account of oversight by their Chartered Accountant. This Court considered the Instructions issued by the CBDT to its subordinate authorities, in this regard. In view thereof, for the AY 2016-2017, this Court was pleased to condone the delay of approximately 1257 days in filing Form 10B, mainly on the ground that the petitioner did not appear to have been lethargic or lacking in bona fides in making the claim beyond the period of limitation which should have a direct bearing on the discretion to be exercised by the income tax authorities. According to Mr. Singh said judgment would clearly apply to the facts of the present case. On the basis of which the impugned order should be set aside. 2 [2024] 298 Taxman 650 (Bombay). the said case considered that the assesee-trust filed Form 10B beyond due date. The assessee’s auditor admitted to such oversight on the ground that he did not consider provision of Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. He was under a bona fide impression that since the fact of accumulation of receipts was reported in audit report in Form 10B, a separate statement was not required. The Court held that in view of the fact that the delay was not intentional, the assesse could not be prejudiced on account of ignorance of rules of procedure admitted by the professional engaged by the assessee, to condone the delay on part of that assessee. Mr. Singh would submit that the said decision would squarely apply to the given case. Submission of the Respondents

On the other hand, Mr. Dinesh Gulabani, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and vehemently opposed all contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. In this regard, he placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply dated 03 April 2024 filed by one Mr. C. V. Pavana Kumar, Commissioner of Income Tax, where the case of the respondents had been elaborately dealt with. 3 2024] taxmann.coom 114 (Bombay). Mayur Adane, PA Page 14 of 34

Mr. Gulabani would submit that in the original and revised return of income filed by the petitioner, it had not claimed any deduction in respect of the amount deemed to be applied as per clause 2 of ‘Explanation 1’ to Section 11(1) for which filing of Form 9A is mandatory. Also, under the Income Tax Rules it is mandatory for petitioner-trust to apply 85% of its income for charitable/religious purposes every year. In the event, the trust is unable to do so, it has the option of deemed application for certain type of income. Accordingly, in terms of ‘Explanation 2’ to Section 11(1) if in the previous year, a charitable trust is not able to utilize its 85% of its income due to the fact that such income has not been received in the previous year or for any other reason, then the trust has the option to apply such income in the year of receipt or in the year immediately following the year of approval of income. Rule 17 of the IT Rules stipulates that the option for deemed application ought to be exercised by the petitioner in Form 9A, which was to be furnished electronically, before the due date specified under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. In the instant case, the petitioner has neither determined nor claimed such amount of deemed application in its audit report furnished in Form 10B, return of income so filed by it, nor electronically filed Form 9A before filing its return of income on 12 October 2017. Resultantly, the petitioner’s case was rightly selected for scrutiny by the respondents. Mayur Adane, PA Page 15 of 34

It was further submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer specifically enquired as to whether the petitioner had filed the Form 9A electronically and not manually as mandated by change of procedure. The petitioner had filed its Form 9A on 20 December 2019 along with an application for condonation of delay in respect of its return of income filed on 12 October 2017 under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. Thus, there was a gross delay of 799 days attributable to the petitioner in submitting Form 9A, to be filed electronically as per the change in procedure. The said affidavit-in-reply of the respondents does not controvert the fact that the petitioner on becoming aware of its mistake in filing its return manually, it was so filed on the income tax portal on 20 December 2019, at the earliest opportunity.

The respondents in support of the impugned order contend that the petitioner had accepted the mistake in respect of claiming depreciation amounting to Rs.19,25,787/- which was thus correctly disallowed. Further, the petitioner in a query raised by the respondents in regard to furnishing details of capital expenditure amounting to Rs.1,95,20,255/- the petitioner responded that the actual capital expenditure was revised to Rs.1,28,60,530/-. In view thereof, according to the respondents, the assessing officer correctly disallowed the capital expenditure amounting to Rs.66,59,725/- and consequently rightly initiated the penalty proceedings Mayur Adane, PA Page 16 of 34

Accordingly to the respondents, the petitioner was not taking the compliance under the IT Act seriously. It was that the petitioner had failed to furnish any proof, documentary or otherwise in support of its case for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A. The petitioner failed to even file the said Form 9A within time, electronically, as required due to change in procedure. It sat over such compliance and filed it belatedly on 20 December 2019 after a gross delay of 799 days. In this context, the case of the petitioner that the delay is, at the highest, a procedural lapse, is not acceptable in the facts of the present case. This is in as much as, the petitioner neither determined nor claimed such amount of deemed application in its audit report in Form 10B nor electronically Form 9A belatedly until 20 December 2019 in respect of return of income which was already filed on 12 October 2017. The petitioner had claimed such deduction only during the course of assessment proceedings, only when the assessing officer, specifically asked for the same, which lacks bonafides.

Mr. Gulabani then emphatically urged that the reliance of the petitioner on the Circulars issued by the CBDT from time to time cited Mayur Adane, PA Page 17 of 34

To summarize this, Mr. Singh would rely on an affidavit-in- rejoinder dated 4 July 2024 of one Mr. Suresh Keshavdeo Bhageria, Trustee of the petitioner which is on record. He would adopt the contents of the rejoinder. The impugned order should be read and interpreted as it stands. The case of the respondents cannot be propped up and or improved by way of an affidavit and/or pleadings. He would thus submit that the reply affidavit of the respondent does not take the case of the petitioner, any further and would support rejection of the impugned order and thus prays Mayur Adane, PA Page 18 of 34

On the factual conspectus of the present case, we have noticed that the petitioner Trust had filed its Nil return of income along with Form 10B for the assessment year in question, i.e., 2017-2018 on 12 October 2017, claiming exemption under section 11 of the IT Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revised return on 29 December 2018 which was selected for scrutiny, pursuant to which the respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 10 October 2019 to the petitioner under Section 142(1) of the IT Act along with an annexure of requisition of details, from the petitioner. In the said revised return of income the petitioner claimed depreciation of Rs. 19,25,787/- on assets purchased during the year and claimed it as an application of its income. Similarly, expenses towards capital expenditure was revised to Rs.1,28,60,530/-. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner during the assessment proceeding for A.Y. 2017-2018 uploaded a revised note dated 9 November 2019 on the Income Tax Portal along with revised computation of income rectifying the mistake in such computation, namely claim of depreciation of Rs.19,25,787/- on fixed assets under Section 11(6) of the IT Act; expenses towards capital expenditure was revised to Rs. 1,28,60,530/- along with deduction under Section 11(1) ‘Explanation 1’ clause (2) of Mayur Adane, PA Page 19 of 34

A perusal of record reveals that the petitioner had filed Form 9A dated 20 December 2019 under Rule 17(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 under the heading “Application for exercise of option under clause (2) of Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the IT Act”. Rule 17(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 reads thus:- “17(1) The option to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act in Mayur Adane, PA Page 20 of 34

We find that in the impugned order, the juri ictional assessing officer failed to take note of a crucial fact the application for condoning delay in filing Form 9A, was filed on 20 December 2019. The petitioner adopted Mayur Adane, PA Page 21 of 34

We have perused Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act which deals Extracted below is the said section. “(a)…. 119(2)(b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorise any income-tax authority, not being 88[a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified Mayur Adane, PA Page 22 of 34

A perusal of the above statutory provision makes it clear that the legislature has specifically conferred power to the Commissioner of Income Tax to admit an application to claim any exemption, refund or relief after the expiry of the specified period under the IT Act which shall be dealt with in accordance with law. We may note that such provision has been introduced with a view to avoid genuine hardship to the assesses who have come forward with an intent to pay tax and abide by the mandate of the IT Act, but for reasons beyond control are prevented from adhering to statutory timelines. We have also carefully perused the Circular of CBDT No. 7 of 2018 dated 20 December 2018 referring to the Finance Act 2015 amending sections 11 and 13 of the IT Act with effect from 1 April 2016, i.e, A.Y. 2016-2017. The relevant portion of the said Circular dated 20 December 2018 which was issued with a view to condone delay applications filed by trusts under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act reads thus: “5.Accordingly, in supersession of earlier Circular/Instruction issued in this regard, with a view to expedite the disposal of applications filed by trusts for condoning the delay and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby authorizes the Commissioners of Income-tax, to admit belated applications in Form No. 9A and Form No.10 in respect of AY 2016-17 where such Form No. 9A and Form No.10 are filed after the expiry of the time allowed under the relevant Mayur Adane, PA Page 23 of 34

The Commissioners will, while entertaining such belated applications in Form No. 9A and Form No.10, satisfy themselves that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from fling of applications in Form No. 9A and Form No.10 within the stipulated time. Further, in respect of Form No. 10 the Commissioners shall also satisfy themselves that the amount accumulated or set apart has been invested or deposited in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Act.”

The above Circular issued by way of delegated legislation empowered Commissioner of Income Tax to consider and condone applications for delay in filing Form 9A within time, on ground of sufficient cause. We may also refer to another Circular of CBDT Circular No. 30 of 2019 dated 17 December 2019 which reads thus: “Sub: Condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act in filing of Form.9A and Form No.10 for Assessment Year 2017-18- extension of applicability of Circular No.7 of 2018- Reg. In partial modification of this office Circular No.7 of 2018, dated 20th December, 2018 issued vide F No. 197/155/2018-ITA-I on the above mentioned subject, it is decided to extend the applicability of this Circular to Assessment Year 2017-18.”

A perusal of the above unequivocally brings out clear legislative intent to extend the applicability of the earlier Circular dated 20 December 2018 for A.Y. 2016-2017 to assessment year in question i.e., A.Y. 2017-2018. Thus, even under the said Circular No. 30 of 2019, dated 17 December 2019 Mayur Adane, PA Page 24 of 34

The above re-enforces the legislative intent to permit condonation of delay in filing Form 9A and 10 under Section 119(2)(b) authorizing Commissioners of Income Tax to admit such applications and decide on merit, in cases where the assesses were prevented to file the said forms in time, after showing sufficient cause. Thus, the legislative intent discernible from above Circulars of CBDT issued from time to time under Section 119(2)(b), providing for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A and 10 by the assesses with unambiguous language and purport to avoid, prevent, mitigate hardship to them. It is on such basis that the petitioner addressed letters/application to the respondent No. 1, dated 30 January 2023, Mayur Adane, PA Page 25 of 34

In the context of the above, we would refer to the decision of this Court dated 4 September 2024 passed in the case of Jyotsna M. Mehta vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 19 & Ors.4 of which one of the member (G.S.Kulkarni, J.) was a member. Analyzing the provision of Section 4. 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2946. Mayur Adane, PA Page 26 of 34

We may observe that it would have been quite different if there were reasons available on record of the PCIT that the case on delay in filing returns as urged by the petitioners was false, and/or totally unacceptable. It needs no elaboration that in matters of maintaining accounts and filing of returns, the assessees are most likely to depend on the professional services of their Chartered Accountants. Once a Chartered Accountant is engaged and there is a genuine dependence on his services, such as in the present case, whose personal difficulties had caused a delay in filing of the petitioners returns, was certainly a Mayur Adane, PA Page 27 of 34

Resultantly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to file returns Mayur Adane, PA Page 28 of 34

We also note a decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Neumec Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. the C.B.D.T., New Delhi & Ors.5, dated 8 October 2024 of which one of us (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) was a member, adopted the view taken by this Court in the case of Jyotsna Mehta cited (Supra). Neumec Builders cited (Supra) was a case where this Court was confronted with an issue of delayed filing of Form 10-IC within the prescribed period by the petitioner along with an application for condonation of delay, which was not decided by the assessing officer. In similar facts, this Court adopted the 5. 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2946. Mayur Adane, PA Page 29 of 34

1 By way of further circular No. 30/2019 dated 17-12-2019, similar directions were issued by CBDT for the AY 2017-18 as well. Subsequently, by way of CBDT Circular No. 03/2020 dated 3-1-2020, the Commissioners were authorized to admit the belated delay condonation applications under section 119(2) of the Act where delay is upto 365 days. Mayur Adane, PA Page 30 of 34

2 More recently, by way of similar CBDT Circular No. 17/2022 dated 17-7-2022, the Commissioners were authorized to condone delay beyond 365 days upto 03 years in filing Forms 9A and 10 for AY 2018-19. 8. For AY 2017-18 also, the petitioner/assessee had filed a similar application seeking condonation of delay in filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income-tax vide order dated 26-12-2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26-12-2019, the Commissioner Income-tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 5-3-2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly for AY 2018-19 also, delay on the part of the petitioner in filing Form 10 was condoned in view of the underlying principle of the above mentioned circulars to liberally condone such delays in order to mitigate hardships of the assessees.

As mentioned above, the delay in filing Form 10 in the present case occurred because the amendments went unnoticed by the officials of the petitioner. The assessment year 2016-17 was the first occasion subsequent to those amendments. Therefore, we find no reason to disbelieve the explanation furnished by the petitioner to explain the delay in filing Form 10. Further, we are unable to fathom as to what benefit would accrue to the petitioner by delaying the filing of Form

In our opinion the discretion conferred for condoning the delay was not correctly exercised by the Commissioner Income Tax.”

In our view, the above decision would squarely apply as far as the principles made applicable to the issue of an application for condonation of delay by the assessee is concerned. As held in that case, in the facts of the Mayur Adane, PA Page 31 of 34

We are afraid that we are not able to accept the submissions advanced by Mr. Gulabani for the respondents, as accepting it would run contrary to the pith and substance of Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act dovetailed with the statutory scheme in the context of CBDT Circulars cited (Supra) issued from time to time under Section 119(2)(b) of IT Act. Also, the only primary reason in the impugned order that belated filing of Form 9A by the petitioner-trust is not a procedural lapse, is in the present facts a hyper Mayur Adane, PA Page 32 of 34

In our view, the powers and statutory discretion conferred on the commissioners to condone delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act ought to be judiciously exercised so that undue hardship to the assessee is avoided. Instead, the impugned order makes it evident that the assessing officer has mixed up issues of the petitioner claiming deductions towards deprecation and capital expenditure made and duly disclosed by it during the assessment proceedings with intentional delay in belated filing of Form 9A attributed to the petitioner. In fact the chart relied on by the petitioner reproduced (Supra) setting out the revised computation of income by the assessee of Rs. 2,70,006/- as against that of Rs. 59,98,875/- not being accepted by the respondents in light of delayed filing of Form 9A by the petitioner, would lead to undue financial burden, hardship foisted upon the petitioner-trust. Such vital aspect ought to have weighed with the respondents in considering and deciding the aspect of hardship, while rejecting its application for condonation of delay. Mayur Adane, PA Page 33 of 34

Thus, we find that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner cited (Supra) could not be distinguished by Mr. Gulabani for the respondents in their applicability to the present case. In fact, the legal, jurisprudential principles reiterated in the said decisions, in our opinion, are clearly applicable to the case in hand. A contrary view would militate against the true meaning, purport and language of Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act which aims at mitigating hardships and ensuring substantial justice to genuine assessee who should not be non-suited purely on hyper technical ground and ipse dixit of the assessing officer. It is thus not possible for us to sustain the impugned order of the juri ictional assessing officer dated 28 September 2023. 44. In light of the above discussion, we are inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is required to be allowed.

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). No order as to costs. (ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.) Mayur Adane, PA Page 34 of 34