Neermullikuttai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Since there was no genuine hardships in filing their ITR within prescribed time limit, the application was not maintainable since the ITR was already filed by assessee and the same was taken on record, and thus the issue of condoning delay in filing the ITR would not arise.
Held: Assessee was a co-operative Society. Assessee had filed their ITR with a delay of 216 days, due to which, assessee was unable to claim the deductions, exemptions, etc., available to them under the provisions of the IT Act. Assessee submitted that the aforesaid delay was occurred due to the delay in receipt of audit report and the COVID outbreak and the said aspects were explained by assessee in their application, which was filed under Section 119(2)(b) to condone the delay in filing the ITR. However, the said application was rejected by the respondent citing the reason that assessee had not provided sufficient reasons to justify their genuine hardships. Respondent had strongly opposed for condonation of delay in filing the ITR and would submit that while passing the impugned order, the respondent had very well considered the request made by assessee and since the respondent did not find any genuine hardship faced by assessee in filing their ITR, the condone delay application was rejected by the respondent vide the impugned order dated 27.12.2023. It was held that in the application filed by assessee under Section 119(2)(b), nothing had been stated with regard to the delay in receipt of Audit report on 24.02.2020. Even if such statement was made in the said application, the same could not be considered as a reason for delay in filing the ITR since the Audit certificate was issued to assessee as early as on 02.07.2019. Therefore, the respondent had rightly rejected the application filed by assessee. However, in the case on hand, even though the audit report was very much available to assessee prior to the due date, assessee had failed to file the ITR within the prescribed time limit, which was nothing but the deliberate omission on the part of assessee. Thus, the delay was occurred only due to the fault on the part of assessee. In this case, after making the payment of penalty as provided under Section 234F, assessee had already filed their ITR and thereafter, they had filed an application before the respondent to condone the delay in filing their ITR. When such being the case, the aforesaid application was not maintainable since the ITR was already filed by assessee and the same was taken on record, in which case, the issue of condone delay in filing the ITR would not arise. The application was filed before the respondent, under the pretext of condoning the delay in filing the ITR, to get the benefits, viz., deductions, available under Section 80P. In the event if assessee intend to file an application to claim the deductions under Section 80P of the IT Act, they should have moved such application and prayed accordingly. Even assuming that the application, which was filed under Section 119(2)(b), was maintainable, the reasons assigned by assessee had not at all justified any genuine hardships faced by them in filing their ITR within prescribed time limit. Taking into consideration of all these aspects, the respondent had rightly rejected the application filed by assessee vide the impugned order dated 27.12.2023. Hence, the said impugned order dated 27.12.2023 warrants no interference of this Court. In such view of the matter, the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
