Sudipta Basu v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 52(4) - New Delhi & Anr

$~32 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 244/2022 SUDIPTA BASU..... AppellantThrough:Mr.Bibhuti Kumar Singh, Advocatewith appellant in person.Through:Mr.Bibhuti Kumar Singh, Advocatewith appellant in person.versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 52(4) - NEW DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through:Mr.Vipul Agrawal with Mr.ParthSemwal, Advocates for Mr.ZohebHossain, Sr.Standing Counsel for theRevenue.Semwal, Advocates for Mr.ZohebHossain, Sr.Standing Counsel for theRevenue. Date of Decision: 03[rd]August, 2022 % CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): C.M.No.33778/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA No.244/2022 1.Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the Orderdated 23[rd]December, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(‘ITAT’) in ITA 1870/Del./2020 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT erred indisallowing the loss of Rs.8,67,803/- pertaining to the Assessment Year2017-18. ITA 244/2022 Page 1 of 2 3.He states that the ITAT erred in law and in facts by not giving aliberal construction to Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short‘Act’) and in not appreciating the fact that the Assessee was prevented fromfiling the return of income within time due to circumstances which werebeyond the Assessee's control. In support of his contention, he relies uponthe order dated 09[th]November, 2015 passed by the MetropolitanMagistrate, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. 4.Learned counsel for the Appellant clarifies that the Appellant hadfiled his return on 22[nd]January, 2018 as against the due date of 05[th]August,2017 i.e. after a delay of four months and sixteen days. 5.This Court is of the view that Section 119(2)(b) of the Act read withCBDT Circular No. 9/2015 provides a remedy to the Assessees to seekcondonation of delay, in cases where Assessee could not file their incometax returns within time due to genuine hardship. Consequently, the ITATwas correct in holding that the remedy for claiming condonation of delaywherein the ITR was filed after the due date, lies with the Board and not theITAT. 6.Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration inthe present appeal and the same is dismissed. MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 03, 2022KA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J ITA 244/2022 Page 2 of 2