GIST: The Court recognised the genuine hardship of the senior citizen and allowed the condonation of the delay sought under Section 119(b)(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961.

In a writ petition filed by a senior citizen seeking condonation of delay in filing Income Tax Returns ( ITR ), The Rajasthan High Court condoned the delay citing genuine hardship underwent by the assessee who is a senior citizen. The assessee- petitioner, Padam Raj Bhandari, is an insurance surveyor and senior citizen who filed an application on May 12, 2016, seeking the condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to claim an income taxrefund for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15. The assessee contended that he faced genuine hardship mentally, financially and physically due to his depression, limited income and age   which in turn led to the delay in filing the tax returns. The application was rejected by the Income Tax officer and Commissioner of Income Tax, the respondents, on February 27, 2017 who argued that there was not enough proof to prove that the assessee faced genuine hardship. Mr. T.C. Gupta, the counsel representing the petitioner-assessee, argued the petitioner did face genuine hardship and thus should be granted the benefit under the specified section and the CBDT Circular dated June 9, 2015. The counsel relied upon the precedent law laid down by the  Apex Court in the matter of B.M. Malani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr, in which the term `genuine’ was defined as “not fake or counterfeit, real, not pretending (not bogus or merely a ruse)”. This definition is applicable and true in the case of the petitioner owing to his old age and financial struggles. Mr. Sunil Bhandari, counsel for the respondents argued that the ambit of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act could have been considered only if there was a genuine hardship and that too only for a period of six years, which is stipulated in the CBDT Circular No.09/2015 dated 09.06.2015. The counsel further vehemently contended that there was not enough proof provided by the petitioner regarding his depression or illnesses. After examining the arguments and claims from both the petitioner and respondents, the bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman held the firm opinion that with the depression, old age, long pendency of the issue and the petitioner’s status as a small-scale surveyor with no negativity in revenue collection by the tax authorities, this has to be considered as a case of genuine hardship. The Court further directed the authority concerned to accept the returns and decide the claim of the petitioner, while strictly adhering to the six years limit from the date of petitioner’s application as prescribed in the CBDT Circular No.09/2015 dated 09.06.2015. With the aforesaid observations and directions made, the writ petition was allowed.