Serious Medical Condition Preventing Assessee From Timely Filing ITR Is 'Genuine Hardship' For Delay Condonation: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court recently condoned the delay by an assessee in filing his Income Tax Return, citing his health condition as 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961.A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “petitioner has highlighted the medical reasons, which prevented him from filing the ITR timely. The medical condition...
The Delhi High Court recently condoned the delay by an assessee in filing his Income Tax Return, citing his health condition as 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “petitioner has highlighted the medical reasons, which prevented him from filing the ITR timely. The medical condition do indicate seriousness, which required surgery for cervical OPLL. Presumption can surely be drawn that the medical condition has prevented the filing of ITR within time.”
Briefly put, the last date of filing the ITR for FY 2020-21 was 31.07.2022, the date for filing of the belated ITR being 31.12.2022.
Petitioner had sought condonation of delay beyond 31.12.2022 in filing the ITR .
Vide the impugned order, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rejected Petitioner's request by stating there is ignorance on his part, which cannot be held as 'genuine hardship'.
Petitioner then approached the High Court and produced his medical records including nerve compression in the spinal cord and advice for surgery. The medical examination was done between the period 31.07.2022 till 31.12.2022 — the period during which Petitioner was required to file the returns.
The Department however contended that the petitioner having not filed the ITR for a period of more than five months (July & December), the request seeking condonation of delay was rightly rejected.
The High Court said it is not convinced with the reasons given by the respondents in rejecting the application. That apart, it said, the delay being of 33 days and the reasons being bonafide, the PCIT should have condoned the delay.
As such, it remanded the matter back to the PCIT to pass a fresh order.
Appearance: Ms Smriti Sahay and Ms Pragati Singh, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Ruchir Bhatia SSC with Mr. Anant Mann JSC and Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. for Respondents
Case title: Neeraj Guglani v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-15 & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2579/2024