S.ABDUL HAMEED Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act , had filed Ext.P1 return for the assessment year 2014-2015 returning an amount of Rs. 2,06,160/- and claiming refund of an amount of Rs. 670/-. On processing the return submitted by him, the respondents refunded the said amount to him. It would appear that a property owned by the petitioner was acquired by the 2nd respondent and an amount of Rs.46,39,856/- was paid to the petitioner, after deducting an amount of Rs.9,28,642/- towards TDS. The 2nd respondent had deducted the tax at source while making payment towards compensation to the petitioner in respect of the land compulsorily acquired from him. The petitioner, therefore, revised his return for the assessment year 2014-2015 through Ext.P2 revised return filed on 11.05.2015. On coming to know that the revised return filed by him would not be considered by the respondents, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act for condonation of the delay in filing the revised return. The said application came to be rejected by Ext.P9 order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.09.2019, inter alia, on the finding that the petitioner had failed to furnish any document to support his claim that the Tahsildhar (LA) had filed the TDS return belatedly. The Principal Commissioner also found that the petitioner had not established that he would face genuine financial hardship if the refund was not granted to him. It is apparent from Ext.P9 order that the Principal Commissioner was guided by the contents of Ext.P11 Circular that was issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes prescribing guidelines for the exercise of discretion under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein the averments in the Writ Petition are refuted and the findings of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in Ext.P9 order are sought to be justified for the reasons contained therein. It is, in particular, pointed out that inasmuch as the first return filed by the petitioner was itself belated, the petitioner could not have filed a belated return under S. 139 (5) and hence the Principal Commissioner could not have considered the request for a condonation of delay in filing the revised return.

(3.) Through a reply affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, my attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in Pala Marketing Co-operative Society Limited v. Union of India and Others [2008 (1) KHC 637], wherein on the aspect of condonation of delay, it was held by this Court that the Board should condone the delay if failure to condone the delay causes genuine hardship to the assessee no matter whether the delay in filing the return is meticulously explained or not.