Suman Devi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward Nohar, Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2554/2024 Suman Devi W/o Jitendra Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, SonriRoad, Ward No.6, Nohar, Hanumangarh- 335523, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward Nohar, Rajasthan. 2. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range1, Bikaner,Rajasthan.Rajasthan. 3. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jodhpur I,Rajasthan.Rajasthan. 4. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman,Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Kothari Mr. Ayush Goyal For Respondent(s): Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMANOrder 16/04/2024 1.The petitioner in this writ petition emerges the facts that thepetitioner is the proprietor of the firm, who is engaged in tradingof herbs and certain plants required for Ayurved. The firm wasregistered under the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017. Theonly point raised is that the petitioner sought condonation of delayin filing the return of the assessment year 2021-22 which is withinthe purview of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1961’) whereby the delay of15 days was sought to be condoned. The petitioner claimed thatafter the standard deductions, the total gross income was below Rs.2,50,000/- and the petitioner had acquired a total TDS ofRs.77,220/- which was also reflected in Form 26AS. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner has given ample reasonsfor the delay of 15 days in filing the return for the assessmentyear 2021-2022 as petitioner is a widow and is running a smallbusiness in a small town. Learned counsel for the petitioner alsopointed out that the reason for the delay includes the crashing ofthe computer at the time of preparation of the accounts and thenthe same was required to be recomputed. He further submits thatthe respondents had ample power particularly under Section119(2)(b) of the Act of 1961 and thus such a small delay in apeculiar matter ought to have been condoned. 3.The counsel for the respondents opposes on the ground thatthere is a time limit which needs to be followed and the same wasnot followed by the petitioner and thus, merely on the ground ofsympathy the delay cannot be condoned. 4.The issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitionerbefore this court is trivial. This Court finds that the respondentshave ample powers to condone the delay of the assessee, ifsufficient reasons are found. 5.At this juncture, it is considered appropriate to reproduce therelevant portion of the Circular 9/2015 [F.No.312/22/2015-OT],Dated 09.06.2015 as hereunder: - "SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961-INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES - INSTRUCTIONS TOSUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES - CONDONATION OFDELAY IN FILING REFUND CLAIM AND CLAIM OFCARRY FORWARD LOSSES UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) CIRCULAR 9/2015 [F.NO.312/22/2015-OT], DATED 9-6-2015 …... 5. The powers of acceptance/rejection of the applicationwithin the monetary limits delegated to thePr.CCsIT/CCsIT/Pr.CsIT/CsIT in case of such claims will besubject to Following conditions:i. At the time of considering the case under Section119(2)(b), it shall be ensured that the income/loss declaredand/or refund claimed is correct and genuine and also thatthe case is of genuine hardship on merits.ii.…...” 6.The petitioner is a widow and is running a very small business of herbs and was at a loss in the year when she wasrunning this business as a proprietor of the firm. As the delay infiling the return has been adequately explained by stating thecomplete factual matrix, this Court is inclined to allow the writpetition. …... 5. The powers of acceptance/rejection of the applicationwithin the monetary limits delegated to thePr.CCsIT/CCsIT/Pr.CsIT/CsIT in case of such claims will besubject to Following conditions:i. At the time of considering the case under Section119(2)(b), it shall be ensured that the income/loss declaredand/or refund claimed is correct and genuine and also thatthe case is of genuine hardship on merits.ii.…...” 6.The petitioner is a widow and is running a very small business of herbs and was at a loss in the year when she wasrunning this business as a proprietor of the firm. As the delay infiling the return has been adequately explained by stating thecomplete factual matrix, this Court is inclined to allow the writpetition. 7.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed while quashing theimpugned order dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure-1). The respondentsare directed to treat the return filed by the petitioner for theassessment year 2021-2022 within time. It is needless to say thatthe respondents shall be at a liberty to question the assessmenton law but not on the limitation. 8.All pending applications stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 7-Dharmendra Rakhecha & poonamS/-