Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"21. In our view, the affidavit of the income tax consultant which has neither been disputed nor controverted by the respondents is sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act. Besides it is not in dispute that the return for AY 2011-12 was in fact filed by the petitioner albeit 365 days later on 30th September, 2012. That in respect of the other years from 2010-11 to 2013-14 except 2011-12, the income tax authorities have allowed the deduction under Section 80 IB (10) through the petitioner. In our view, substantial injustice would be caused to the petitioner if the order dated 7 th May, 2021 is not set aside. This is clearly a case falling within the phrase "genuine hardship". As mentioned above. Technical consideration above cannot come in the way of substantial Gaikwad RD 3/5 421-aswp-6089-2024.doc justice. It is neither an allegation of malafide nor an allegation that the delay has been deliberate. We do not find that the omission to file petitioner's return by the income tax consultant to be an act of negligence. Any person in his situation would have been mentally disturbed. The very fact that not only the petitioner's ITR was not filed in time, there were also 28 others whose return filing was delayed beyond the due date. The authorities should refrain from over analysis which leads to paralysis of justice. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order dated 7th May 2021 deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside.

3. Though we would agree with the view expressed by the ITAT that in the order dated 4th May 2022 there was no error, the ITAT failed to appreciate the spirit in which the order dated 23 rd August Gaikwad RD 4/5 421-aswp-6089-2024.doc 2022 was passed by the Hon'ble High Court. The High Court had very categorically observed that the authority should refrain from over analysis which leads to paralysis of justice. Therefore, the delay having been condoned by the High Court, we hereby quash and set aside the assessment order dated 14 th March 2014 and remand the matter to the stage of the Assessing Officer ("AO"), who shall pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law by considering the claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act for AY 2011- 12 made by Petitioner as if there was no delay in filing the return. In fact, what we understand from paragraph 22 of the order dated 23 rd August 2022 of the High Court is that the matter was being remanded to the AO. Instead, Petitioner has approached the ITAT by filing an application under Section 254(2) of the Act.