Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA, D. N. RAY
Rameshbhai Chhotabhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax (IT AND TP) Ahmedabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Chintan Dave appearing for petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel appearing for the respondent.
2. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition, which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior standing Counsel Mr.Varun K.Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.
4. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12th June, 2024 passed by the respondent under Section 119(2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) whereby, the prayer of the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the return of Income for the Assessment Year 2022- 23 is rejected by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner was unable to demonstrate any genuine hardship for not filing the return of income to claim the refund of Rs.23,68,373/-.
5.1 The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a senior citizen who sold open N.A plot bearing Survey No. 2411, admeasuring
The court emphasized that genuine hardship due to age and medical conditions should be considered liberally when deciding on condoning delays in filing income tax returns.
The court held that genuine hardship due to pandemic restrictions justified the condonation of delay in filing the return of income under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The court ruled that 'genuine hardship' should be construed liberally in tax law for condonation of delays, promoting substantial justice, especially when no liability exists.
The court held that 'genuine hardship' in income tax condonation applications should be construed liberally to prevent injustice caused by technicalities, especially in cases involving medical emerge....
The court emphasized that ignorance of law is not an excuse for delay in filing tax returns, but recognized the genuine circumstances of a non-resident's inability to meet deadlines.
The court established that genuine hardship under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act can be recognized based on the specific circumstances of the taxpayer, including age and health, and that the....
The court held that genuine hardship must be considered when evaluating applications for delay condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The court established that genuine hardship under Section 119(2)(b) should be assessed liberally, allowing for condonation of delay in exceptional circumstances.
The court ruled that 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) should be interpreted liberally to ensure substantive justice, allowing for the condonation of delay in procedural submissions avoiding....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
