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.

JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Shyam Nayak for learned advocate Mr.Arjun R. Sheth for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel with learned advocate Mr.Dev D. Patel for the respondent.

2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24th March, 2022 passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Income Tax (IT&TP), Ahmedabad under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) whereby, the application to condone the delay occurred in filing the return of income by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2017-18 is rejected on the ground that there is no genuine hardship demonstrated by the petitioner.

4. The brief facts of the case are as under :

4.1. The petitioner is a Non-Resident Indian settled in USA since 2013 and was an employee of Mphasis Corporation (USA) which is wholly owned foreign subsidiary of an Indian Company i.e. Mphasis Limited.

4.2. During the year under consideration, i.e. for Assessment Year 2017-18, the petitioner sold 24524 shares of Mphasis Limited through broker ICICI Securities and the sale consideration on sale of Short Term Capital Gain Shares are of Rs.1,36,78,623/- and a TDS amounting to Rs.24,30,692/- was deducted under Section 195 of the Act.

4.3. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to get a refund of Rs.22,23,150/- as per the following computation :

4.4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner could not file the return as provided under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) of the Act as the petitioner was residing in USA and only when the petitioner visited India in January, 2019 and met his tax consultant, he came to know about the amendment and that the return could have been filed only upto the end of the Assessment Year. The petitioner therefore preferred an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Indore on 10.01.2019 along with Form 26AS, Computation of Income and Passport to claim the refund amounting to Rs.22,23,150/-.

4.5. The petitioner thereafter received a letter dated 1st February, 2019 intimating that his application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act was forwarded to Income Tax Officer (IT&TP), Bhopal and thereafter, by letter dated 05.02.2019, it was informed that the application of the petitioner is transferred to the respondent.

4.6. It is the case of the petitioner that as no updates were received by the petitioner, reminder request letter dated 7th June, 2019 was sent by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter was informed by the letter dated 18.09.2019 by the Income Tax Officer (IT&TP), Bhopal to furnish explanation regarding facing genuine hardships along with the documentary evidences for non-filing of the return within prescribed time limit and to submit the duly filed checklist proforma.

4.7. In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed the detailed reply and explanation on 14.10.2019.

4.8. The petitioner also submitted a grievance through ITBA portal online on 30th January, 2021 to the Income Tax Officer (IT&TP), Bhopal that his application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act was not processed and was pending since long.

4.9. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application dated 31.01.2022 before the respondent which was rejected by the impugned order dated 24th March, 2022. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 24th March, 2023, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Shyam Nayak for the petitioner submitted th