Depression, Old Age, Assessee's Status As Small-Scale Surveyor To Be Considered As Genuine Hardship; Rajasthan High Court Condones Delay

The Rajasthan High Court has allowed the application seeking condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act in order to claim a refund for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15 on the grounds of genuine hardship.

The bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman has observed that the depression, old age, long pendency of the issue, and the petitioner's status as a small-scale surveyor with no negativity in revenue collection by the tax authorities (like scrutiny) attached have to be considered as genuine hardship.

The petitioner/assessee, who is an insurance surveyor, filed an application on May 12, 2016 seeking condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act in order to claim a refund for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15. However, the respondent department rejected the application for condonation of delay on 27.02.2017.

The assessee contended that he is a senior citizen now aged about 72 years, faced genuine hardship, and thus ought to have been granted benefit under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act read with CBDT Circular dealing with the relaxation/delay condonation dated 09.06.2015.

The department contended that the ambit of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act could have been considered only if there was a genuine hardship and that too only for a period of six years, which is stipulated in the CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 dated 09.06.2015. Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act prescribes for six years of maximum power to the authority to condone the delay.

The court noted that the petitioner is now 72 years of age, works as an insurance surveyor, and is seeking to file tax returns for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15.

The court, while allowing the petition, directed the department to accept the returns and decide the claim of the petitioner while strictly adhering to the six-year limit from the date of the petitioner's application as prescribed in the CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 dated 09.06.2015, while treating it to be a case of genuine hardship, in accordance with law.

Counsel For Petitioner: T.C. Gupta

Counsel For Respondent: Sunil Bhandari

Case Title: Padam Raj Bhandari Versus UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 182

Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4252/2017

Click Here To Read The Order