The Bombay High Court has condoned the delay in filing income tax return (ITR) for Assessment Years (AY) 2017-18 and 2018-19.
The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the returns were found to be defective, and the Petitioner was informed of the defective return. However, for reasons the Petitioner attributes to the part-time account, such intimation was not addressed, resulting in the delay.
The Petitioner/assessee has challenged the order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, refusing to condone the delay in filing income tax returns for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19.
The petitioner contended that this was a case of genuine hardships as explained in the application for the condonation of delay filed on 23 November 2022. The financial position of the Petitioner company is not quite strong, and the business activities suffered considerably due to the Covid pandemic.
The Petitioner submitted that he had candidly disclosed that a part-time accountant received the intimation of the notice of defective return, but the same was not brought to the notice of the directors for a considerable time. The part-time accountant left the Petitioner company’s services, which further contributed to the delay.
The department contended that the Petitioner should have pursued the matter with greater diligence, and that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. Since the delay is now condoned, the Petitioner might claim interest should any refunds be found to be due, and this would be quite unfair to the department.
The court while condoning the delay directed that the return filed after clearing the defects pointed out should be scrutinised by issuing notice under Section 143(2) and making an assessment under Section 143 of the Income Tax. If any amounts are found payable by the Petitioner, the Petitioner, subject to its right of appeal, will have to pay the same to the Respondents. However, suppose any refund is found due to the Petitioner. In that case, the same will have to be granted to the Petitioner, though, without interest considering the statement now made by and on behalf of the Petitioner. Such assessment should be completed within one year from the Petitioner filling the cured returns.
Case Details
Case Title: Skystar Clearing & Forwarding Pvt Ltd Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 485 Of 2025
Date: 03 March 2025
Counsel For Appellant: Jose Pulikkoden
Counsel For Petitioner: Akhileshwar Sharma
Read More: Delhi High Court Directs Customs Dept. To Release Gold Chain Of NRI Who Came To Attend Marriage
