Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10269/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined 5 On the other hand Mr.Karan Sanghani learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has failed to show any genuine cause which has resulted into hardship of the petitioner which may have led to belatedly filing of the income tax return. The petitioner has not pointed out any other cause except the fact that the Chartered Accountant had inadvertently missed filing the income tax return. The petitioner was duty bound to file the income tax return on 31.10.2022 as per the provisions of the Act. Ignorance of law or blaming the third party professional cannot be ground to claim the benefit of the Act.

5.1 It was further agitated that the petitioner is a habitual late filer and even for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19, there were applications for condonation of delay under Sec.119(2)(b) of the Act by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of quashing the delay caused in filing the Income Tax Return.

6 Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts, it is not in dispute that the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner was the reason which NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10269/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined has resulted into non filing of the income tax return. The Audit Report had been duly certified and was filed with the department. However, as per the affidavit of the Chartered Accountant, due to heavy work load, the staff of the Chartered Accountant had missed the filing of the Income Tax Return on time and in such a situation an application was made on 28.03.2023 under Sec.119(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the respondent authority could not have rejected the application as filing of return for claiming benefit under the provision of the Act is procedural and the benefit accrued to the assessee cannot be taken away on account of technicalities when there is a genuine hardship. This can be drawn from the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani v. Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation), [2010] 323 ITR 223 (Bombay) as well as the case of Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CBDT & Ors., reported in [2011] 332 ITR 87 (Bombay). Similarly, in case Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v.