Allowing the petition the Court held that the assessee having made out a case of genuine hardship in its favour, rejection of the application filed for condonation of the delay under section\u00a0119(2)(b)\u00a0in filing the revised return of income under section\u00a0139(5)\u00a0had no justification. The authority had neither in the rejection order under section\u00a0119(2)(b)\u00a0nor in the counter affidavit, denied the entitlement of the assessee to claim set off of past years\u2019 deficit under section\u00a011. Rather, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order had acknowledged the entitlement of the assessee to such claim. The assessee had established the requirement of \u201cgenuine hardship\u201d, as enumerated under section\u00a0119(2)(b). Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner (Exemption) that the assessee had failed to demonstrate \u201cgenuine hardship\u201d, was misconceived, and unsustainable. The assessee had filed its return for the assessment year 2021-22 on the due date of March 15, 2022. The time limit for filing the revised return of income under section\u00a0139(5)\u00a0was December 31, 2022. On the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) and finding no other alternative, the assessee had filed an application under section\u00a0119(2)(b). The assessee had clearly stated in its application filed under section\u00a0119(2)(b)\u00a0that it had inadvertently erred in claiming the past years\u2019 deficit. Its claim was genuine and unless the time limit for filing revised return making such claim was extended, the assessee would be in genuine hardship. The authority without taking into consideration the genuine hardship of the assessee had mechanically rejected the application which was unsustainable. That in view of the provisions of section\u00a0119(2)(b)\u00a0read with the circular dated June 9, 2015 ([2015] 374 ITR (St.) 25) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulated that an application for claim of refund or loss was to be made within six years from the end of the relevant assessment year for which such application or claim was made, the last date for filing of revised return for the assessment year 2021-22 was December 31, 2022 and the assessee had made the application under section\u00a0119(2)(b)\u00a0on October 16, 2023 which was within six years time limit, as stipulated in the circular for condonation of delay in filing the revised return under section\u00a0139(5). When the assessee had filed the application indicating its genuine hardship, it should have been considered in the proper perspective and not rejected. Accordingly, the order rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the revised return under section\u00a0139(5)\u00a0was quashed and set aside. The authority concerned is directed\u00a0 to take follow up action in accordance with law.(AY.2021-22)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Charitable purpose-Revised return of income-Delay-Condonation of delay-Genuine hardship-Bona fide reasons to be understood in context of circumstances-Application for condonation of delay was allowed. [S. 2(15), 11(1),119(2(b), 139(5), Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47605","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-cnP","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47605","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47605"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47605\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":47606,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47605\/revisions\/47606"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47605"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47605"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47605"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}