Remedy for Claiming Condonation of delay in ITR Filing Lies with CBDT

Sudipta Basu Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)

Delhi High Court is of the view that Section 119(2)(b) of the Act read with CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 provides a remedy to the Assessees to seek condonation of delay, in cases where Assessee could not file their income tax returns within time due to genuine hardship. Consequently, the ITAT was correct in holding that the remedy for claiming condonation of delay wherein the ITR was filed after the due date, lies with the Board and not the ITAT.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

C.M.No.33778/2022

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

ITA No.244/2022

1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 23^rd December, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA 1870/Del./2020 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT erred in disallowing the loss of Rs.8,67,803/- pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

3. He states that the ITAT erred in law and in facts by not giving a liberal construction to Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) and in not appreciating the fact that the Assessee was prevented from filing the return of income within time due to circumstances which were beyond the Assessee’s control. In support of his contention, he relies upon the order dated 09^th November, 2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant clarifies that the Appellant had filed his return on 22^nd January, 2018 as against the due date of 05^th August, 2017 i.e. after a delay of four months and sixteen days.

5. This Court is of the view that Section 119(2)(b) of the Act read with CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 provides a remedy to the Assessees to seek condonation of delay, in cases where Assessee could not file their income tax returns within time due to genuine hardship. Consequently, the ITAT was correct in holding that the remedy for claiming condonation of delay wherein the ITR was filed after the due date, lies with the Board and not the ITAT.

6. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.