Petitioner filed his return 12 days late. He filed an application under section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay, citing COVID-19-related constraints. PCIT\u00a0 rejected the application, holding that there was no genuine hardship in filing the return, inter alia noting that public transport was operating at 50% capacity in late December 2021 and that assessee had sufficient time to file, and referring to CBDT Circular No. 09\/2015. On writ the Court held that\u00a0\u00a0 PCIT had not dealt with various averments made by petitioner\/applicant and had rejected the application for condonation of delay in a mechanical manner.\u00a0\u00a0 PCIT who admittedly exercises powers under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, acts as a quasi-judicial body and is under an obligation to pass a reasoned order. Since the order, except stating that there was no genuine hardship in filing the return of income, did not deal with the detailed application filed by the petitioner\/assessee, PCIT had not dealt with various averments made by petitioner and had rejected the application for condonation of delay in a mechanical manner, which was clearly unsustainable. Therefore, the order was to be set aside, and the matter was remanded back to PCIT\u00a0\u00a0 for a de novo consideration to decide the application. CBDT Circular No. 09\/2015, dated 9-6-2015.\u00a0 (AY. 2021-22)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Return-Delay of 12 days-COVID-19-related constraints-PCIT acts as a quasi-judicial body-Under an obligation to pass a reasoned order-Order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to PCIT for a de novo consideration to decide the application. [S. 119(2)(b),139(4) 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_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":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fLe","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60588","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=60588"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60588\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60589,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60588\/revisions\/60589"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}