The Assessing Officer had denied the deduction under section 80IC in the intimation under section 143(1) without mentioning any reasons, the assessee filed an application under section 154 for rectification. Despite reminders the rectification application was not disposed of. Contending that since the audit report in form 10CCB was not filed due to the inadvertence of his chartered accountant which possibly could have been the reason for denial of deduction under section 80IC, and form 10CCB was uploaded, the assessee filed an application for revision under section 264 before the Principal Commissioner seeking grant of deduction under section 80IC. The petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation since it was filed after a period of two and half years. The assessee continued to pursue the pending rectification application. The assessee approached the Central Board of Direct Taxes for condoning the delay, and to direct the Assessing Officer to allow the rectification application. The Board rejected the application on the ground that the reasons stated by the assessee, i. e., inadvertence on the part of its chartered accountants in uploading form 10CCB was general and no reasonable cause was shown to justify the genuine hardship being faced by the assessee. On a writ petition  held  that no assessee would stand to benefit by filing a delayed claim, more so, where the assessee would get a tax advantage or benefit by way of deduction under section 80-IC. The fact that an assessee had realized that he would pay more tax if he did not get the benefit of deduction under section 80-IC would be a “genuine hardship”. The order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119 indicated its disregard for judicial orders. The order was quashed.  The Court also held that  the Assessing Officer was duty bound to pass an order on the application under section 154 which had been pending for almost six years, instead of making baseless statements that there was no mistake apparent from record for which rectification was sought.  The Legislature has conferred power on the Principal Commissioner under the Income-tax Act, 1961 to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the assessees to condone the delay for disposing of matters on the merits. Routinely passing orders without appreciating the reasons why the provisions for condonation of delay have been provided in the Act defeats the cause of justice. There cannot be a straitjacket formula to determine what is “genuine hardship”. Relied, Bilawala (K. S.) v. PCIT (2024) 463 ITR 766 /158 taxmann.com 658  (Bom)(HC)  R. K. Madhani Prakash Engineers J. V. v. UOI (2023) 458ITR 48 (Bom)(HC)  (AY.2016-17)