An accountant’s error is a reasonable cause for condoning delay in filing Form 10-IC.

By | September 24, 2025
0 Comment

An accountant’s error is a reasonable cause for condoning delay in filing Form 10-IC.

Issue

Can a delay in filing Form 10-IC to opt for the concessional tax rate under Section 115BAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, be condoned if the delay was caused by the inadvertence of the assessee’s accountant?

Facts

  • An assessee-company intended to be taxed under the concessional regime of Section 115BAA for the assessment year 2023-24. This required filing Form 10-IC by the due date of the income tax return.
  • Due to an error on the part of their accountant, the form and the return were filed with a 60-day delay.
  • The assessee filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) asking for the delay to be condoned. They explained that they had relied on their accountant and had acted promptly to file the documents as soon as they were notified of the lapse by the tax department.
  • The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) rejected the application, arguing that since the company had a history of timely filings, there was no “reasonable cause” for the current delay.

Decision

The High Court ruled in favour of the assessee and remanded the matter for a fresh decision.

  • It held that a fault on the part of the accountant can constitute a “reasonable cause” for the assessee’s non-compliance.
  • The court noted that the assessee’s prompt action in filing the documents immediately after realizing the mistake supported the genuineness of their explanation.
  • It concluded that the PCIT’s order was unreasoned because it had failed to properly consider the specific arguments and facts presented by the assessee in their application. The matter was therefore sent back to the PCIT for a fresh and fair consideration.

Key Takeways

  • Reliance on Professionals is a Reasonable Cause: A delay caused by a bona fide error, negligence, or inadvertence of a professional like an accountant or a tax consultant is generally considered a sufficient and reasonable cause for seeking condonation of delay.
  • Prompt Corrective Action is Key: When a taxpayer discovers a compliance lapse, taking immediate corrective action is a significant factor that demonstrates good faith and strengthens their case for having the delay condoned.
  • Authorities Must Pass Reasoned Orders: A quasi-judicial authority like the PCIT cannot reject an application in a mechanical or summary manner. The order must show that the authority has applied its mind to the specific reasons and circumstances presented by the applicant.
  • A Good Track Record is Not a Disadvantage: An assessee’s consistent history of timely compliance should not be used against them to deny relief for a one-off, genuine mistake.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VRG Electronics (P.) Ltd.
v.
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi 7
V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar, JJ.
W.P. (C) No. 753 OF 2025
CM APPL. No. 3758 OF 2025
SEPTEMBER  15, 2025
Asheesh Jain, Sr. Adv., Shahrukh Ejaz and Danish Khan, Advs. for the Petitioner. Puneet Rai, Sr. SC, Ashvini Kumar, Rishabh Nangia, Gibran, JSCs, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Srishti Sharma and Pratham Aggarwal, Advs. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“a) Issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned Order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while condoning the delay of 60 days in filing Income-tax Return;
(b) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to accept the Petitioner’s Income Tax Return and Form 10-IC filed for Assessment Year 2023-24 and process the refund claim of 44,190 -(Rupees Four Thousand One Hundred Ninety Only);
(c) Issue appropriate directions while quashing the Demand Notice issued by the Revenue under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 and stay other consequential actions that may arise out of the Impugned Order; and. “
2. In effect, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the respondent, on an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) seeking condonation of delay in filing the Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) and Form 10- IC for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2023-24. The impugned order reads as under:
“Application dated 14.02.2024 requesting for condonation of delay in filing of return of income and Form 10IC for the Assessment Year 2023-24 was filed by the assessee on 16.02.2024 stating as under:-
This is in reference to the captioned subject. It is submitted that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30.12.2023 vide acknowledgment number 592521421301223 for the year under reference. The copy of the ITR acknowledgement is enclosed herewith as per Annexure-1. It is submitted that in the income tax return, the assessee company opted section 115BAA of the Act for taxation for the year under reference. It is submitted that such option can be exercised by filing an application in the Form 10IC. As per the provisions of Act, for opting section 115BAA of the Act for taxation, the assessee company has to file the Form 10IC on or before the due date specified under sub section (1) of section 139 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was required to file the Form 10IC on or before 31st October 2023.
It is submitted that the assessee company filed Form 10IC on 29.12.2023 vide acknowledgment number 58 9052790291223. The copy of the Form 10IC along with its acknowledgment is enclosed herewith as per Annexure-2. It is submitted that the assessee company could not file inadvertently the Form 10IC within due date.
It is submitted that the assessee company was not aware about compliances of the income tax act. The assessee company is completely dependent on the accountant. The accountant inadvertently forgot to file the income tax return and the Form 10Ic within the due date specified in the Act. Thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the assessee company regarding non-filing if ITR and Form 10IC after being received the general e-mail from the income tax department for non-filing of the income tax return which goes to all the assesses. Therefore the income tax return and the Form 10IC were filed belatedly.
2. The CBDT, vide Circular no. 9/2015 [F.No. 312/22/2015-OT] dated 09.06.2015, further modified vide the CBDT, Circular no. 7/2023 [F. No. 312/63/202-OT] dated 31.05.2023 issued guidelines to deal with the applications for condonation of delay in filing returns, claiming refund and returns claiming carry forward of loss thereof under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is reproduced as under:-

“2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CsIT/CsIT) shall be vested with the powers of acceptance/rejection of such applications/claims if the amount of such claim is not more than Rs. 50 lakhs for any one assessment year.

3. As per the details in the application filed by the assessee, the assessee has claimed refund of Rs.4,190/- Therefore the matter was referred to this office as the refund claimed in the case is less than of Rs.50 Lacs.
4. It is noticed that the assessee is a private limited company. The assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y. 2023-24. As per the application, the assessee has sought permission to file income tax return & Form 10IC for A.Y.2023-24 so that refund of Rs.4,190/- could be claimed by it. The reason for non compliance by the assessee for filing of return of income is that the accountant of the assessee inadvertently forgot to file the income tax return and Form 10IC within the due date specified in the Act. The assessee company has filed return of income in earlier years. The assessee is well aware of the statutory compliances of filing of filing of return of income and other forms/reports. However the assessee has not taken necessary steps to ensure necessary compliance to file the Income Tax return and related reports within the specified time. There is no reasonable cause for non compliance by the assessee. Therefore, the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing of return of income and Form 10IC for AlY. 2023-24 cannot be permitted. The application filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed.”
3. Some of the facts relevant to be noted for the purpose of this judgment are, the assessee filed his ITR on 30.12.2023 under Section 115BAA of the Act, declaring taxable income of Rs. 19,76,540/- while claiming a refund of Rs. 4,190/-. The assessee opted Section 115BAA of the Act for taxation for the relevant Assessment Year. Such option can be exercised by filing an Application under Form 10-IC on or before the due date specified under sub-Section (1) of Section 139 of the Act.
4. It is a matter of record that the petitioner/assessee was required to file the ITR and Form 10-IC on or before 31.10.2023. So, in other words, the filing of the ITR was delayed by 60 days as the Form-10 IC was filed on 29.12.2023 and thereafter the return was filed on 30.12.2023.
5. The assessee/petitioner filed an application dated 14.02.2024 on 16.02.2024, seeking condonation of delay in filing the return of income. The grounds for delay as submitted by the assessee primarily rested on the complete dependence of the assessee on its accountant who inadvertently missed the deadline owing to poor health and work load. The same was rejected by the respondent in terms of the impugned order which we have already reproduced.
6. Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the assessee through an E-mail was informed by the Income Tax Department regarding the non-filing of Income Tax for the AY 202324, whereupon the assessee immediately contacted its accountant who informed that there was indeed a delay in filing of the ITR and Form 10-IC. The same was owing to his poor health and heavy workload. The assessee accordingly requested his accountant to proceed with the filing at the earliest. It is his submission that the assessee was not aware about the compliances to be adhered to under the Act and was completely dependent upon its accountant for the same and this oversight came to their attention only upon receiving the general notification/E-mail from the department which is dispatched to all the non-filing assessees.
7. Mr. Jain submitted that the parties should not be made to suffer because of the fault or negligence of the professional upon whom they totally depend and rely. This mistake of the Accountant which is an oversight by him should not have been considered to be a fatal circumstance outweighing all the other facts in favour of the assessee. It was a case of a genuine difficulty and the circumstances were beyond the control of the assessee.
8. It is his submission that the respondent has failed to appreciate that the limitation would not come as a hindrance to do substantial justice. The delay was not deliberate/wilful. It was on account of genuine hardship, that, ITR could not be filed on time.
9. According to the counsel, the respondent failed to exercise the discretionary power under Section 119 to further the cause of equity. It is his submission that the respondent has also failed to follow the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) whereby the respondent was to focus on evaluating sufficiency of reasons for delay rather that merit.
10. He stated that the impugned order overlooks the return filed by the assessee, demonstrating his intention to comply with applicable laws. It is also his submission that the impugned order is without any rationale/reasoning and merely states that there is no reasonable cause for non-compliance by the assessee.
11. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Shokeen v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 803 (Delhi)/W.P.(C) 13112/2018, wherein it was held that, it is trite law that rendering substantial justice shall be paramount consideration of the Courts as well as the authorities rather than deciding on hyper-technicalities.
12. It is his submission that the delay was not deliberate and corrective actions were taken i.e., ITR was filed, showing bona fide conduct. He also submitted that the impugned order is mechanical in the sense that the assessee, being a private limited company, was presumed to be well-versed with the statutory compliance requirements. This approach is contrary to the observation made by the Bombay High Court in the case of Jyotsna M. Mehta v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-19 6 (Bombay)/2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2946, relevant part whereof reads as under:
“7. 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.”
13. He stated that the approach of the respondent/Revenue in the present case should have been equituous and judicious and the assessee should not have been denied its right merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone delay, on the authorities concerned. He also submitted that the petitioner has been a regular filer of Income Tax and to substantiate the same, he has produced the details of ITRs filed by him from AY 2017-18 to 2020-21.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent would oppose the writ petition by stating that the Circular No. 09/2015 requires the tax payer to prove that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond his control, resulting in genuine hardship.
15. The impugned order dated 21.06.2023 rejecting the petitioner’s condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act was passed after due application of mind and in accordance with settled law and CBDT Circular no. 09/2015. The Centralised Processing Center (CPC) processed the ITR filed by the petitioner and raised the demand of Rs. 1,34,050/- while rightly denying the benefits of Section 115BAA. Careful consideration was given to the submissions and documents on record by the assessee company. The assessee company had failed to satisfy the conditions necessary to avail the concessional taxation scheme as per Section 115BAA read with Rule 21AE of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee has itself admitted that it has failed to comply with the statutory time for filing the ITR and Form 10-IC due to the negligence of its accountant. This was not found to be acceptable and cannot be considered as a case of genuine hardship.
16. He also contested that the reliance placed by the counsel for the assessee on the case of B.M. Malani v. Commissioner of Income Tax 306 ITR 196 (SC) where the issue before the Court was whether the CIT waived the amount of interest payable by the assessee under Section 220(2A) on account of genuine hardship. In the instant case, according to him, there is no case of genuine hardship.
17. Mr. Rai has also heavily relied on the fact that the assessee is habitual in filing late returns. The details of its filing of ITRs filed for the last three years i.e., AY 2020-21 to AY 2022-23 are as under-
S.No.AYDue date of filing of ITRDate of filing of ITRReasons for delay
12020-2131.01.202109.02.2021NA
22021-2231.12.202117.02.2022NA
32022-2331.10.202205.11.2022NA

 

18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record, the short issue which arises for consideration is whether the respondent is justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking condonation of delay of sixty days in filing the ITR.
19. It may be stated here that Section 119(2)(b) of the Act empowers the CBDT, if it considers it desirable or expedient to do so for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases by general or special order, authorize any income tax authority, not being a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or a Commissioner (Appeals), to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under the Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under the Act for making such application of claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law.
20. The exercise of power by the authority is regulated by empowering the various officers on the basis of monetary effect. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (‘PCIT’) had considered the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay in filing form 10-IC and ITR and has stated that mere reason of negligence on the part of the accountant cannot be accepted. Hence, the non-filing of the ITR does not seem to be genuine.
21. The conclusion of the PCIT is in the light of the provisions of the CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 dated 09.06.2015 to hold that there was no genuine hardship in filing the return of the income.
22. The Supreme Court in the case of B.M Malani (supra) on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has interpreted the word ‘hardship’ and in paragraph 16 held that genuine means not fake or counterfeit, real not pretending. In paragraph 18, the Supreme Court held, the ingredients of genuine hardship must be determined keeping in view the dictionary meaning thereof, and the legal conspectus attending thereto. 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.
23. We may also refer to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Seshammal (R) v. ITO [1999] 237 ITR 185 (Madras) wherein it held as under:
“7. This is hardly the manner in which the State is expected to deal with the citizens, who in their anxiety to comply with all the requirements of the Act pay monies as advance tax to the State, even though the monies were not actually required to be paid by them and thereafter, seek refund of the monies so paid by mistake after the proceedings under the Act are dropped by the authorities concerned. The State is not entitled to plead the hypertechnical plea of limitation in such a situation to avoid return of the amounts. Section 119 of the Act vests ample power in the Board to render justice in such a situation. The Board has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the petitioner’s request for refund.”
24. We may also refer to the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani v. DIT (International Taxation) 323 ITR 223 (Bombay), wherein the Bombay High Court held that the phrase ‘genuine hardship’ used in Section 119(2)(b)should have been construed liberally, even when the petitioner has applied with all the conditions mentioned in Circular dated 12.10.1993. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
“15. The phrase “genuine hardship” used in section 119(2)(b) should have been construed liberally even when the petitioner has complied with all the conditions mentioned in Circular dated 12-10-1993 The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merit. The expression “genuine” has received a liberal meaning in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to hereinabove and while considering this aspect, the authorities are expected to bare in mind that ordinarily the applicant, applying for condonation of delay does not stand to benefit by lodging its claim late Refining to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated As against this, when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after bearing the parties. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have 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. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. The approach of the authorities should be justice-oriented so as to advance cause of justice. If refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund.
16. Whether the refund claim is correct and genuine, the authority must satisfy itself that the applicant has a prima facie correct and genuine claim, does not mean that the authority should examine the merits of the refund claim closely and come to a conclusion that the applicant’s claim is bound to succeed. This would amount to prejudging the case on merits. All that the authority has to see is that on the face of it the person applying for refund after condonation of delay has a case which needs consideration and which is not bound to fail by virtue of some apparent defect. At this stage, the authority is not expected to go deep into the niceties of law. While determining whether refund claim is correct and genuine, the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led, it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence.”
25. In Ramesh Kumar Shokeen (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has observed as under:
“”21. However, a bare reading of the impugned order would reflect that there is no element of any reasoning, rationale or discussion by the PCIT before arriving at the conclusion that the case of assessee does not fall under the ambit of genuine hardship.
22. At this juncture, it is fundamental to refer to the observations made by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC 405], which are reproduced herein below:-

“8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] :

“Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.”

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.”

[Emphasis added]
23. Therefore, the reasons ascribed in the counter affidavit merit no consideration as the impugned order before us does not allude to any rationale before deciding the condonation of delay application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act.
24. It is quintessential to understand that the PCIT while exercising the powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act acts like a quasijudicial body and is bestowed with the cardinal responsibility to pass a reasoned order. Thus, an order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act which is devoid of any reasoning or rationale would be de hors the legislative mandate prescribed under the beneficial scheme of Section 119 of the Act.
25. It is strikingly clear that the impugned order is passed in a pedantic manner without any application of mind as the order records no reasons before summarily rejecting the condonation of delay application.
26. Therefore, in light of the aforenoted discussion and judicial precedents analysed, we set aside the impugned order dated 28 March 2018 and remand the matter back to the desk of the concerned PCIT with a direction to consider the condonation of delay application filed by the assessee afresh, in accordance with the law and as per extant regulations.
27. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly, alongwith pending applications, if any.”
26. The CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 highlights the fact that while considering the case under Section 119(2)(b), it is to be seen that the case is of genuine hardship on merits.
27. The PCIT who admittedly exercises powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act would amount to a quasi judicial body and is under obligation to pass a reasoned order.
28. We find, the respondents have not explained, why the reason given by the petitioner that the accountant had forgot to file the ITR cannot be accepted. In the absence of such a finding, the respondents cannot say that there is no reasonable cause for non-compliance by the assessee. In fact the fault on the part of the accountant surely reflects reasonable cause for noncompliance by the assessee.
29. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Electric Co. Ltd. v. CIT  255 ITR 396 (Gujarat), has held that the CBDT was not justified in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground that a case of genuine hardship was not made out by the petitioner and delay in claiming the relief was not satisfactorily explained, more particularly, when the returns could not be filed in time due to the ill health of the officer who was looking after the taxation matters of the petitioner. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:
“6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taken into consideration the documents forming part of the petition. We may state that the respondents have not filed any reply controverting the averments made in the petition. From the record of the case, it is evident that the principal officer of the petitioner-company was bed-ridden around June, 1991, as he was suffering from severe tuberculosis and the doctor had advised him to take complete bed rest for about three months. As per the averments made in the application dated October 1, 1999, the principal officer of the petitioner-company had taken treatment for tuberculosis which lasted for about seven to eight months. It is also clear from the averments made in the said application that around April, 1992, again the principal officer of the company had fallen sick and the doctor had diagnosed the disease to be typhoid and he was once again tied down to the bed. As there was no one to look after taxation matters of the company, the returns could not be filed in time in which refund was claimed. Section 119(2)(b) of the Act empowers the Board to authorise any Income Tax authority not being Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under the Act, after the expiry of the period specified by or under the Income Tax Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on the merits in accordance with law. It is an admitted position that in exercise of power conferred by the above-referred to provision, the Board has issued circular dated October 12, 1993, enabling the Income Tax authority to condone delay caused in claiming refund. It is not the case of the respondents that four conditions mentioned in the said circular are not satisfied by the petitioner, but the application for refund is rejected only on the ground that the case of genuine hardship was not made out by the petitioner.
7…….we are of the opinion that the Board was not justified in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground that a case of genuine hardship was not made out by the petitioner and delay in claiming the relief was not satisfactorily explained, more particularly when the returns could not be filed in time due to the ill health of the officer who was looking after the taxation matters of the petitioner. In view of the provisions of Section 119(2)(b), the phrase “genuine hardship” should have been construed liberally and as the petitioner has satisfied all the conditions mentioned in circular dated October 12, 1993, the claim for refund advanced by the petitioner ought to have been examined on the merits. We may state that learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions of the petitioner has stated at the bar that the petitioner would not claim interest on the refund amount payable to the petitioner. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are satisfied that the delay caused in filing the claim for refund was satisfactorily explained by the petitioner and, therefore, the claim for refund should not have been rejected by the Board on technical ground. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, but the direction sought against respondent No. 1 to give amount of refund as prayed for in para. 7(B) of the petition cannot be granted because the claim for refund is not examined by respondent No. 1 on the merits.”
30. We may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq v. Munshi Lal [Civil Appeal No. 1415 of 1981, dated 16-4-1981], wherein it was observed as under:
“3.. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court’s procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job.
The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order.”
In the above case, the Supreme Court was dealing with an issue where the absence of an Advocate engaged by a party during final arguments lead to the matter being decided against the said party. A parallel can be drawn from the above mentioned judgment that a party should not suffer at the fault of the Charted Accountant in this case.
31. Further, the stand of the petitioner that after the receipt of the email from the respondent regarding the non-filing of the ITR, Form 10-IC, and the ITR were promptly filed on 29.12.2022 and 30.12.2022 is appealing. This would substantiate the explanation for filing Form 10-IC and ITR beyond time. At this stage we may highlight the contents of the application dated 14.02.2024 of the Accountant wherein it is stated as under:
“It is submitted that the assessee company was not aware about compliances of the income tax act. The assessee company is completely dependent on the accountant. The accountant inadvertently forgot to file the income tax return and the Form 10IC within the due date specified in the Act. Thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the assessee company regarding nonfiling if ITR and Form 10IC after being received the general email from the income tax department for non-filing of the income tax return which goes to all the assesses. Therefore, the income tax return and the Form 10IC were filed belatedly.”
32. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Lava International Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes 148 (Delhi) is concerned, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. This we say so because, though the case of the petitioner therein was that the filing of returns in respect of the financial year was impacted by the outbreak of the pandemic, the Court noted that the time for filing such returns was extended up to 15.02.2021 and the petitioner despite signing the return on 31.07.2020 had ultimately filed the same on 30.03.2021. It is also noted that the recital of facts which appear under paragraph 7(iii) clearly demolishes the assertion of financial constraints that may have befallen the assessee. In the case in hand, the return was filed with a delay of sixty days only and it is not a case where the return was signed much in advance, unlike the case of Lava International Limited (supra). In any case, we have already held that the impugned order passed by the respondents is without considering the averments made by the petitioner in the application that non-filing of ITA was because of the mistake of the Accountant, and to that extent, it is an unreasoned order.
33. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 and remand the matter back to the concerned PCIT for a de novo consideration to decide the application, keeping in view our observations made above.
34. The petition is disposed of.
35. Accordingly, the pending application is dismissed as infructuous.