Shailesh Vitthalbhai Patel vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 on 26 July, 2022
5.3 The Kerala High Court in Pala Marketing Co-Opereative Society
Limited vs. Union of India [(2009) 311 ITR (Ker)] stated,
"Even though courts while considering application for condonation of
delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act may be justified in
considering the merits of the case and consequences to the party for non-
consideration of the case on merits, I do not think section 119(2)(b) is
just an incorporation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. What is stated
Page 5 of 8
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:59:51 IST 2022
C/SCA/281/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022
in section 119(2)(b) is that if the Board considers it desirable or
expedient for avoiding genuine hardship to the assessee, it should
condone the delay. In other words, what the Board should consider is
hardship to the party if delay is not condoned. The Board should
condone the delay if failure to condone the delay cause genuine hardship
to the assessee, no matter whether the delay in filling return is
meticulously explained or no...."