Bombay High Court
Ravi Madhusudan Mehta vs The Principal Commissioner Of ... on 4 September, 2024
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2024:BHC-OS:14255-DB
925-927.WPL17939_2024CORRECTED.DOC
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17939 OF 2024
Jyotsna M. Mehta ... Petitioner
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-19 & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17999 OF 2024
Niti Ravi Mehta ... Petitioner
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-19 & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 18000 OF 2024
Ravi Madhusudan Mehta ... Petitioner
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-19 & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/w. Ms. Aadnya Bhandari for the petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Omle a/w. Mr. Pritish Chatterjee for the respondents.
_______________________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.
Date : 4 September, 2024
_______________________
Oral Judgment (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)
1. The reliefs as prayed for in these petitions are similar, which assail
orders passed by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai (PCIT),
whereby the application filed by the petitioners under section 119(2)(b) of
4 September , 2024
925-927.WPL17939_2024CORRECTED.DOC
the Income-tax Act, 1961 praying for condonation of delay in filing the
return of income has been rejected.
2. The petitioners in all these petitions are members of one family.
Their accounts as also all issues in relation to their income-tax returns were
handled by a Chartered Accountant, who could not take timely steps on
account of ill health of his spouse. For such reason, the returns of the
petitioners could not be filed within the stipulated time.
3. The petitioners have contended that they were fully dependent on
the Chartered Accountant in all respects from the finalization of the accounts
as also in taking steps to file their respective returns. They contend that there
was a genuine reason on the delay caused to the petitioners to file returns, as
the Chartered Accountant was in a situation of distress due to the ill-health
of his wife, keeping him away from the petitioners professional work.
4. In such circumstances, the petitioners approached the respondents by
an application filed under section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act Act praying for
condonation of delay in filing of their returns; setting out such reason, which
according to the petitioner, was bonafide and a legitimate cause, requiring
the delay to be condoned in filing of the petitioners' returns. The petitioners
also submitted all the medical papers in support of their contentions that the
4 September , 2024
925-927.WPL17939_2024CORRECTED.DOC
case as made for condonation of delay was bonafide/genuine as reflected
from the medical papers. However, it appears from the impugned order as
passed by PCIT that he disbelieved the petitioners' case when he observes
that the reasons are not genuine reasons preventing the petitioners from
filing Income-tax returns. In recording such observations, the PCIT has not
recorded any reasons as to why the documents as submitted by the petitioner
were disbelieved by him, and/or the case of the petitioners was not genuine.
Also there is no contrary material on record, that the petitioner's case on such
ground was required to be rejected.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused
the record.
6. In our opinion, the approach of PCIT appears to be quite
mechanical, who ought to have been more sensitive to the cause which was
brought before him when the petitioner prayed for condonation of delay. In
such context, we may observe that it can never be that technicalities and
rigidity of rules of law would not recognize genuine human problems of such
nature, which may prevent a person from achieving such compliances. It is
to cater to such situations the legislature has made a provision conferring a
power to condone delay. These are all human issues and which may prevent
4 September , 2024
925-927.WPL17939_2024CORRECTED.DOC
the assessee who is otherwise diligent in filing returns, within the prescribed
time. We may also observe that the PCIT is not consistent in the reasons
when the cause which the petitioners has urged in their application for
condonation of delay was common.
7. We may observe that it would have been quite different if there were
reasons available on record of the PCIT that the case on delay in filing
returns as urged by the petitioners was false, and/or totally unacceptable. It
needs no elaboration that in matters of maintaining accounts and filing of
returns, the assessees are most likely to depend on the professional services of
their Chartered Accountants. Once a Chartered Accountant is engaged and
there is a genuine dependence on his services, such as in the present case,
whose personal difficulties had caused a delay in filing of the petitioners
returns, was certainly a cause beyond the control of the petitioners / assessees.
In these circumstances, the assessee, being at no fault, should have been the
primary consideration of the PCIT. It also cannot be overlooked that any
professional, for reasons which are not within the confines of human
control, by sheer necessity of the situation can be kept away from the
professional work and despite his best efforts, it may not be possible for him
to attend the same. The reasons can be manifold like illness either of himself
4 September , 2024
925-927.WPL17939_2024CORRECTED.DOC
or his family members, as a result of which he was unable to timely discharge
his professional obligation. There could also be a likelihood that for such
reasons, of impossibility of any services being provided/performed for his
clients when tested on acceptable materials. Such human factors necessarily
require a due consideration when it comes to compliances of the time limits
even under the Income Tax Act. The situation in hand is akin to what a
Court would consider in legal proceedings before it, in condoning delay in
filing of proceedings. In dealing with such situations, the Courts would not
discard an empathetic /humane view of the matter in condoning the delay in
filing legal proceedings, when law confers powers to condone the delay in the
litigant pursuing Court proceedings. This of course on testing the bonafides
of such plea as may be urged. In our opinion, such principles which are quite
paramount and jurisprudentially accepted are certainly applicable, when the
assessee seeks condonation of delay in filing income tax returns, so as to
remove the prejudice being caused to him, so as to regularise his returns. In
fact, in this situation, to not permit an assessee to file his returns, is quite
counter productive to the very object and purpose, the tax laws intend to
achieve. In this view of the matter, we have no manner of doubt that the
delay which is sufficiently explained in the present case would be required to
be condoned.
4 September , 2024
925-927.WPL17939_2024CORRECTED.DOC
8. Resultantly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to file returns without
penalty, fees and interest, if any, within a period of two weeks from today.
All contentions of the parties on the merits of the returns are expressly kept
open.
9. Disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.)
Corrected as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 12 September, 2024.
4 September , 2024
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/09/2024 12:49:41
