Name of the Applicant:

Trust For Reaching The Unreached

Case Details:

Civil Application No. 8977/9370/9760 of 2020

Order passed by:

Gujarat High Court

Date of Order:

22-12-2020

In favour of:

Applicant

CIT Vs. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries Limited (1993) 201 ITR 325

• Provisions regarding furnishing of audit report with the return has to be treated as a procedural proviso. It is directory in nature and its substantial compliance would suffice.
• The court took the view that the benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the same and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the AO or appellate authority by assigning sufficient cause.

G.V. Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 10(2) and others (2019) 261 taxmann.com 482 (Delhi) – Delhi HC

• The rejection of the petitioner’s application u/s 119(2)(b) is only on the ground that according to the Chief Commissioner’s opinion the plea of omission by the auditor was not substantiated. This court has difficulty to understand what more plea or proof as assessee could have brought on record, to substantiate the inadvertence of its advisor.
• There cannot be necessarily proof or material to establish that the auditor in fact acted without diligence.
• “Bonafide” is to be understood in the context of the circumstance of any case.
• The limitation period in the provisions of law is meant to attach finality. However, wherever the legislature intends relief against hardship in cases where statues lead to hardships, the concerned authorities have to construe them in a reasonable manner.

Sujatha Ramesh Vs. CBDT, New Delhi (2017) 87 taxmann.com 228 (Kar. HC)

• The wide powers given to CBDT in case of “genuine hardship” also confers an obligation upon it to consider facts relevant to condonation of delay as well as merit of claim simultaneously on case-to-case basis.
• If the claim in a fit case, it should not normally be defeated on the bar of limitation particularly, when the delay for which condonation is sought is not abnormally large.
• CBDT and higher authorities of department need not always take only a pro revenue approach in such matters. Their approach should be equitious, balancing and judicious and should reflect the application of mind before denying the genuine claim of the assessee on the ground of mere delay in making such claim.
• The present case is one of such nature, where the court finds that the substantial conditions for claiming claim of exemption from capital gain tax stood satisfied and the assessee has made prescribed investment in bonds of NHAI. Therefore, the delay in making investment within time limit of 6 months deserved to be condoned.

B.M. Malani Vs. CIT (2008) 219 CTR 313

• A genuine hardship would interalia, mean a genuine difficulty.
• 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 court took note of a few precedents [Refer detailed case order]

Jay Vijay Express Carriers Vs. CIT-III (2013) 34 taxmann.com.61 (Gujarat)

• There would be a genuine hardship, if the time limit is not extended as otherwise, the entire claim of Rs. 17,84,323/- would be destroyed. It is true that Appellate Commissioner recorded that the petitioner did not remain present in the appellate proceedings. However, that by itself would not take away the petitioner’s case for genuine hardship.
• We are conscious that routine exercise of powers u/s 119 would neither be expedient nor desirable, since the entire machinery of tax calculation, assessment and recovery or refunds would get thrown out of gear, if such powers are routinely exercised without considering its desirability to do so for avoiding genuine hardship. In the present case, considering the special facts, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner ought to have exercise such powers.

In the case of Bombay Merccantile Co-op. Bank Ltd.

• It is well settled that in the matters of condonation of delay, highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice-oriented approach should be adopted. It also observed that a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities.

In the case of Sitaldas Motwani

• The expression “genuine hardship” in section 119(2)(b) should be construed liberally, particularly in matters of entertaining application seeking condonation of delay.
• Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated.
• When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
• There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. The approach of the authorities should be justice oriented so as to advance the cause of justice.