IMPORTANT POINT
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 authority must exercise discretion judiciously.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“1. In view of the facts and grounds enumerated above, it is most respectfully prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, order dated 27. 02.2017 passed by the CIT may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to condone the delay and allow refund as claimed.

2. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be issued in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The petitioner, who is an Insurance Surveyor, filed an application on 12.05.2016 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 respondents rejected the application for condonation of delay on 27.02.2017.

3. Mr. T.C. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, 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 (Annexure-3).

3.1 Mr. Gupta, learned counsel has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of B.M. Malani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. : Civil Appeal No.5950 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4091 of 2007), the relevant excerpt whereof is reproduced hereunder:

8. The term `genuine' as per the New Collins Concise English Dictionary is defined as under:

`Genuine' means not fake or counterfeit, real, not pretending (not bogus or merely a ruse)"

For interpretation of the aforementioned provision, the principle of purposive construction should be resorted to. Levy of interest although is statutory in nature, inter alia for re-compensating the revenue from loss suffered by non-deposit of tax by the assessee within the time specified therefor. The said principle should also be applied for the purpose of determining as to whether any hardship had been caused or not. A genuine hardship would, inter alia, mean a genuine difficulty. That per se would not lead to a conclusion that a person having large assets would never be in difficulty as he can sell those assets and pay the amount of interest levied.

The ingredients of genuine hardship must be determined keeping in view the dictionary meaning thereof and the legal conspectus attending thereto. For the said purpose, another well--known principle, namely, a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong, may also have to be borne in mind. The said principle, it is conceded, has not been applied by the courts below in this case, but we may take note of a few precedents operating in the field to highlight the aforementioned proposition of law. [See Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & ors. 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 102, para 39, Union of India & ors. v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.) (1996) 4 SCC 127 at 142, paras 28 and 29, Ashok Kapil v. Sana Ullah (dead) & ors. (1996) 6 SCC 342 at 345, para 7, Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar (2003) 8 SCC 673 at 692, para 65, first sentence, Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & ors. (2007) 11 SCC 447, paras 13, 14 and 16).

Thus, the said principle, in our opinion, should be applied even in a case of this nature. A statutory authority despite receipt of such a request could have kept mum. It should have taken some action. It should have responded to the prayer of the appellant.

However, another principle should also be borne in mind, namely, that a statutory authority must act within the four corners of the statute. Indisputably, the Commissioner has the discretion not to accede to the request of the assessee, but that discretion must be judiciously exercised. He has to arrive at a satisfaction that the three condit