Bombay High Court
Skystar Clearing And Forwarding vs Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 6 on 3 March, 2025
Author: M S Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-OS:3448 19-WP-485-2025-F.DOCX
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 485 OF 2025
Skystar Clearing & Forwarding Pvt Ltd
L-41 & 370, Dreams The Mall,
Lower Ground Floor,
L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup (West),
Mumbai - 400 078
PAN: AAGCS7409E ...Petitioner
Versus
AMOL 1. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax,
PREMNATH
JADHAV Mumbai-6,
Digitally signed by
AMOL PREMNATH
Room No. 507, 5th Floor,
JADHAV
Date: 2025.03.04 Aayakar Bhavan, M. Road,
14:57:28 +0530
Mumbai 400021.
2. Union of India,
through the Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North
Block, New Delhi - 1100001. ...Respondents
______________________________________________________
Mr Jose Pulikkoden, with Mr Aniket Sawant, Ms Noor Jehan
Sheikh & Ms Nidhi N Jain, for the Petitioner.
Mr Akhileshwar Sharma, with Ms Shraddha Worlikar, for the
Respondents.
______________________________________________________
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED: 03 March 2025
Page 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2025 21:51:45 :::
19-WP-485-2025-F.DOCX
ORAL JUDGMENT PER M S Sonak, J
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule: The rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties.
3. This Petition challenges the order dated 28 February
2023 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
refusing to condone the delay in filing income tax returns for
the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19.
4. Mr Jose Pulikkoden, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner submits that this was a case of genuine hardships as
explained in the application for the condonation of delay filed
on 23 November 2022. He pointed out that the financial
position of the Petitioner company is not quite strong, and the
business activities suffered considerably due to the Covid
pandemic. He submitted that the Petitioner had candidly
disclosed that a part-time accountant received the intimation
of the notice of defective return, but the same was not
brought to the notice of the directors for a considerable time.
He pointed out that this part-time accountant left the
Petitioner company's services, which further contributed to the
delay. He pointed out that earlier, there used to be delays in
granting refunds. Therefore, the Petitioner had a bona fide
impression that the matter for refund was pending with the
department. However, Upon enquiries, it was realised that the
return filed within the prescribed period was not considered
due to some unintentional defects therein. Mr Jose Pulikkoden
submitted that these were bona fide difficulties experienced
by the Petitioner assessee, and no mala fides were involved.
19-WP-485-2025-F.DOCX
He, therefore, submitted that the delay aspect should have
been liberally construed in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case.
5. Mr Sharma defended the impugned order based on the
reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that the reasons
cited were unverifiable, that the Petitioner should have
pursued the matter with greater diligence, and that no
sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. He
submitted that since the delay is now condoned, the Petitioner
might claim interest should any refunds be found to be due,
and this would be quite unfair to the department. For all these
reasons, Mr Sharma submitted that this Petition may be
dismissed.
6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
7. Mr Jose Pulikkoden, on instructions submitted that if
the delay is condoned and the Petitioner is allowed to file the
return or instead, if the Petitioner is permitted to clear the
defects in the original return already filed, then the Petitioner
will not claim any interest on the refunds if such refunds are
ultimately found due on the assessment or intimation. He
submitted that this will address the department's concern
about the Petitioner claiming interest on refunds.
8. The records show that this is a case where the Petitioner
had filed the returns within the prescribed period. However,
the returns were found to be defective, and the Petitioner was
informed of the defective return. However, for reasons the
Petitioner attributes to the part-time account, such intimation
was not addressed, resulting in the delay. The explanation
19-WP-485-2025-F.DOCX
offered does not smack of any mala fides. Mr Jose Pulikkoden
pointed out that earlier there used to be delays in granting
refunds. Therefore, the Petitioner bona fide believed that the
refund issue was pending with the department. Only at the
later stage, when enquiries were made, it was realised that
the matter was pending due to non-clearance of the defects in
the returns as may have been pointed out to the Petitioner.
9. Considering the explanation and the statement that no
interest would be claimed if a refund is allowed, the delay
deserves to be condoned. Mr Jose Pulikoden pointed out that,
according to the Petitioner, the refunds would be in the range
of Rs.5,65,000/-. He submitted that this refund means much
to the Petitioner company, which is presently in reduced
financial circumstances.
10. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow condonation. Mr
Jose Pulikkoden submits that the Petitioners do not have a
copy of the defect notice. Accordingly, we direct the
Respondents to furnish a copy of the defect notice to the
Petitioner within two weeks of uploading this order. Upon
receipt, the Petitioner will file a return pointing out the
defects. This should be done within four weeks of receiving
the defect notice without seeking any further extension of
time.
11. The return so filed after clearing the defects pointed out
should be scrutinised by issuing notice under Section 143(2)
and making an assessment under Section 143 of the Income
Tax. If any amounts are found payable by the Petitioner, the
Petitioner, subject to its right of appeal, will have to pay the
same to the Respondents. However, suppose any refund is
19-WP-485-2025-F.DOCX
found due to the Petitioner. In that case, the same will have to
be granted to the Petitioner, though, without interest
considering the statement now made by and on behalf of the
Petitioner. Such assessment should be completed within one
year from the Petitioner filling the cured returns.
12. If the Petitioner has any difficulties filling out the cured
returns due to software issues, etc., the Jurisdictional
Assessing Officer is directed to ensure that the portal is open
to facilitate the filing and processing of such returns. In any
event, if the difficulties persist, the Petitioner must be allowed
to file the returns in physical format as a special case. We
clarify that the above directions regarding filing in physical
format are issued in this case's peculiar facts and
circumstances and are not intended to constitute any
precedent.
13. The impugned order dated 28 February 2023 is set
aside, and the delay is condoned subject to the above
observations and directions.
14. The rule is made absolute in the above terms without
any cost order. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy
of this order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
