Assessee-company, a corporate debtor, was admitted into CIRP under IBC and a resolution plan was approved by NCLT. New management found that statutory audits were not completed and income-tax returns had not been filed by the resolution professional. It carried out audits and filed returns for relevant years belatedly.\u00a0 Assessee applied to CBDT under section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay. CBDT rejected assessee\u2019s application on the ground that the assessee had not established \u2018genuine hardship\u2019. High Court held that since it was only after approval of the resolution plan that the assessee-company came into the picture as regards management and control over the erstwhile company, and having found that audit was not carried out and returns were also required to be filed so as to carry forward losses, the assessee-company immediately got accounts audited and filed returns; the very purpose of the resolution plan, as approved by the NCLT, would be frustrated, and not condoning the delay would amount to genuine hardship. The order passed by CBDT rejecting an application for condonation of delay filed under section 119(2)(b) for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-2020 by the assessee was to be quashed and set aside, and delay occurred in filing income-tax return was condoned and losses were to be allowed to be carried forward. SLP of revenue was dismissed on account of delay of 162 days. (AY. 2018-19 to 2019-20)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Delay in filing of return-Carry forward and set off of business losses-Rejection of application by CBDT-High Court condoned the delay-Losses are allowed to be carried forward-SLP of revenue dismissed on account of delay of 162 days.[S. 72, 119(2)(b), 139 (4), Art. 136]<\/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_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gYo","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65248","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=65248"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65248\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":65249,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65248\/revisions\/65249"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}