Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Mamta Starch Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the respondent.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.
3. Having regard to the controversy arising in this petition which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for respective parties, the petition is taken up for hearing today.
4. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 5.12.2023 passed by the respondent exercising its powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner to condone the delay for filing a fresh Income Tax Return in response to the notice under Section 139(9) of the Act.
5. Brief facts of the case are as under:
5.1 The petitioner filed return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19, on 14.9.2018, which was marked as defective return as per the provisions of Section 139(9) of the Act.
5.2 In response to the notice issued under Section 139(9
Compliance with statutory requirements under Income Tax Act is essential even if a party claims misunderstanding; genuine hardship must be assessed to condone filing delays.
Exceptional items from a resolution plan do not count as gross receipts under Section 44AB, thus invalidating the order declaring the return defective.
Excess provisions written back do not constitute 'gross receipts' under Section 44AB, thus not necessitating a Tax Audit Report.
The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax must consider genuine hardship when evaluating applications for condonation of delay in filing returns under Section 119(2)(b), and arbitrary refusals u....
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 must be considered in applications for condonation of delay in filing tax-related documents, emphasizing the need for a compassionate approach by authoriti....
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
