HC denies Condonation of delay as Assessee was aware of ITR filing due date

Puneet Rastogi Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Delhi High Court)

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that that the claim of the Petitioner that he was not aware of the due date or the process for filing the return of income has been negated on the sole ground that the Petitioner had filed his return for the assessment year 2011-12 within the time limit. He states that it has not been appreciated that this was the only return ever filed by the counsel of the Petitioner and it was filed about seven years ago. He further states that the Petitioner is admittedly a foreign citizen and having OCI status since 2009 and he cannot be reasonably expected to keep himself aware and updated about the due date for filing return in India especially when he did not have any income taxable in India since the financial year 2010-11.

This Court is of the view that ignorance of law is not an excuse. Further the fact that the Assessee had filed his ITR for the assessment year 2011-12 within the time limit proves that the Assessee was aware of the process of filing the ITR. Consequently, this Court is in agreement with the finding of the Respondent No.2 that in the present case there was no genuine hardship or reasonable cause for late filing of the return.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16^th December, 2020 passed by Respondent No.2 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondent No.1 to condone the delay in filing return of income and grant claim of refund.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 2 had no authority in law to pass the impugned order and that such authority was vested in Respondent No. 1 by law which could not be delegated to any other person or authority. He further states that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and such order is therefore vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order is non-speaking and relies on the report dated 09^th May, 2019 submitted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation)-3, Delhi, whereas letters dated 27^th August, 2020 and 14^th September, 2020 received from the DDIT (IT), Noida show that the enquiries were still in progress as on 14^th September, 2020. Thus, he submits that the impugned order is vitiated by pre-determination.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that that the claim of the Petitioner that he was not aware of the due date or the process for filing the return of income has been negated on the sole ground that the Petitioner had filed his return for the assessment year 2011-12 within the time limit. He states that it has not been appreciated that this was the only return ever filed by the counsel of the Petitioner and it was filed about seven years ago. He further states that the Petitioner is admittedly a foreign citizen and having OCI status since 2009 and he cannot be reasonably expected to keep himself aware and updated about the due date for filing return in India especially when he did not have any income taxable in India since the financial year 2010-11.

This Court is of the view that ignorance of law is not an excuse. Further the fact that the Assessee had filed his ITR for the assessment year 2011-12 within the time limit proves that the Assessee was aware of the process of filing the ITR. Consequently, this Court is in agreement with the finding of the Respondent No.2 that in the present case there was no genuine hardship or reasonable cause for late filing of the return.

This Court is also of the opinion that the impugned order is clear and cogent and has been passed with the approval and sanction of Principal Chief Commissioner (IT). Further, there has been no violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner’s contentions have been duly considered. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.