ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 25.01.2024 issued by the respondent under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [for short ‘the Act’].

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a citizen of India and a Non-resident Indian residing outside India at United States of America (USA) since

2015. The petitioner is employed as a Data and Analytics Professional at USA. The petitioner executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his father and on the basis of such Power of Attorney, the father of the petitioner executed a sale deed for sale of immovable property situated at Ahmedabad on 06.04.2019. On the basis of the consideration received from the sale of the properties, taxable income was computed and an amount of Rs. 8,42,400/- was deducted by the purchaser towards Tax Deducted at Source which was deposited against the tax liability of the petitioner on 16.04.2019.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner could not file income tax return for the Assessment Year 2021-21 within the prescribed period on account of Covid-19 Pandemic situation.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the return of income could be filed in 2023 but the same was not processed as it was filed belatedly. The petitioner thereafter preferred an application to condone the delay in filing return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 under section 119(2)(B) of the Act. The respondent however, by the impugned order dated 25.01.2024, dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner could not show any genuine hardship for not filing the return in time.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner expired on 28.11.2023. It was submitted that the petitioner is entitled to receive a refund of Rs. 8,37,624/- as per the computation of income which is placed on record. It was submitted that if the delay in filing the return is not granted, the petitioner would lose refund amount.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has failed to show any genuine hardship for not filing the return in time and therefore, the respondent was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner while exercising powers under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. It was further submitted that the petitioner has also failed to show any sufficient cause to demonstrate that there existed genuine hardship for condonation of delay except stating that the petitioner is residing outside India and he could not come to India due to Covid-19 Pandemic Situation.

7. Considering the submissions made by both the sides it appears that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is residing at USA and the transaction was entered by his late father on the basis of Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, could not file the return of income due to the Covid-19 Pandemic Situation at the relevant point of time.

8. As per the Circular No. 9/2015 dated

09.06.2015, the respondent was required to exercise the power vested upon him under section 119(2)(b) of the Act and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is not entitled to the refund on the basis of the computation of income for the year under consideration.

9. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing return in time and the delay caused in filing return ought to have been condoned by the respondent while exercising the powers under section 119(2)

(b) of the Act.

10. In view of the facts of the case before us, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.01.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside and the delay caused in filing return by the petitioner is ordered to be condoned under section 119(2)(b) of the Act in the facts of the case. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

Notice is