The denial of substantive benefits due to technical filing errors is unjust; courts must ensure fair consideration of claims under the Income Tax Act.

ORDER :

C.SARAVANAN, J.

By this common order, all these writ petitions are being disposed of.

2. In these writ petitions, the details of the impugned orders passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the relevant Assessment Years are as follows:-

3. By the impugned Order, the respondents declined to revise the assessment initiated under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There is no dispute that the petitioners filed their regular returns of income under Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of which, intimation under (1) was issued.

4. After the intimation were issued under Section 143 (1) of the Act, the petitioners filed applications for revising the assessment in the intimations issued / passed under (1) before the 1^st respondent on 12.12.2022 for each of the assessment years viz., 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. These applications were filed beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 264 (3) of the Act.

5. The impugned order has been passed by the respondent on merits stating that the petitioner ought to have filed a revised Return of Income under Section 139 (5) of the Act i.e., at any time before the end of the relevant Assessment Year or before the completion of the assessment whichever was earlier.

6. The impugned order has not rejected the application on the ground of limitation for the delay in approaching the 1^st respondent under Section 264 of the Act. In other words, the delay in filing the application under of the Act has been implicitly condoned by the respondents.

7. Thus the only issue that remains for consideration is whether the order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Act is sustainable on merits or not.

8. This Court had an occasion to consider some what similar circumstances in M/s.Craftsman Automation P Ltd., v. The Commissioner of Income Tax vide Order dated 06.02.2020 in W.P.No.3967 of 2009. The Court disposed the said writ petition by its Order dated 06.02.2020, after referring to several decisions that were brought to the attention of the Court. It was held as under:-

“22. Defending the orders of the 1st respondent, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.A.N.R.Jayapratap submits that the order is well reasoned and requires no interference. He submits that power under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be exercised to condone the delay on the part of an assessee to comply with the mandatory requirements of the law. He submits that the writ petition is misconceived and is therefore liable to be dismissed.

23. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent.

24. By the impugned order, the respondent has rejected the application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The 1st respondent has noted the Paragraph No.5 of the assessment order dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Assessing Officer, wherein it has been observed that since the petitioner had failed to file return before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year, the benefit of deduction under Section 80 JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be allowed.

25. The 1st respondent has observed that as per sub-section 2 to Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deduction cannot be allowed unless the assessee furnishes certificate along with the return of income, the report of the accountant, as defined in the explanation below such sub-section (2) of Section 2