JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Ms.Vaibhavi K. Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan G. Sanghani for the respondent. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 3. Having regard to the controversy arising in this petition in narrow compass, the same is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. The brief facts of the case are as under : 4.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm and obtained Tax Audit Report for the year under consideration under Section 44AB of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 25.09.2018 which was duly uploaded on the Income Tax portal on the 25.09.2018 and the petitioner filed return of income on 25.09.2018 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.39,98,720/-. 4.2. It is the case of the petitioner that after taking credit of Tax Deducted at Source (for short ‘the TDS’), the petitioner was eligible for refund of Rs.5,19,730/-. Thereafter, the Petitioner received a communication dated 21.01.2019 from the Centralized Processing Center (for short ‘the CPC’) whereby, a positive adjustment of Rs.6,18,311/- was proposed under section 36(1) (va) of the Act in respect of employees' contribution to Provident Fund/Employees' State Insurance (for short ‘the PF/ESI’) to the extent the same has not been credited to the employees' account on or before the prescribed due date. However, inadvertently and due to oversight, the petitioner could not furnish reply to the said communication received from CPC. 4.3. The petitioner, after receipt of the aforesaid communication dated 21.01.2019 from the CPC, examined the Tax Audit Report uploaded on 25.09.2018 and at that time, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that there was an error in mentioning "due date for payment" in "column 20b" of the Tax Audit Report inasmuch as at some places, year was mentioned as "2016" instead of "2017" and at some places, year was mentioned as "2017" instead of "2018". It is the case of the petitioner that such errors occurred for all the items in respect of the PF and for first two items in relation to the the ESI. It is the case of the petitioner that such errors occurred for all the items in respect of the PF and for first two items in relation to the the ESI. Accordingly, such error was in respect of the contribution aggregating to Rs.5,58,012/- in respect of the PF and contribution aggregating to Rs.60,299/-in respect of the ESI. Thus, error was in respect of aggregate sum of Rs.6,18,311/- (i.e. Rs.5,58,012/- + Rs.60,299/-) which is equivalent to the positive adjustment proposed by the CPC vide communication dated 21.01.2019 and upon realising such error, the petitioner obtained a fresh Tax Audit Report from the Chartered Accountant concerned and the same was uploaded on the Income Tax portal on 29.05.2019. 4.4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner received a communication dated 03.01.2020 from the CPC whereby, a positive adjustment of Rs.95,661/- was proposed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees' contribution to the PF/ the ESI to the extent, the same has not been credited to the employees' account on or before the prescribed due date. However, the petitioner could not furnish reply to the said communication received from CPC. 4.5. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, upon receipt of the communication dated 03.01.2020 from CPC, again minutely examined the Tax Audit Report and thereafter, it was again realized that there was an error in mentioning the "due date for payment" in column 20b of the Tax Audit Report to the effect that the due date for payment as regards the 4 th item (contribution of Rs.50,434/- to PF) was mentioned as "15.08.2107" instead of "15.08.2017" and at this stage, it was clarified that there was a delay in depositing the employees' contribution to PF to the tune of Rs.45,227/-(i.e. first item of column 20b of the Tax Audit Report). 4.6. After taking into consideration the error in the 4 th item of column 20b as regards employees contribution to PF of Rs.50,434/- is concerned, total amount which can be disallowed under section 36(1)(va), aggregates to Rs.95,661/- (i.e. Rs.45,227/- + Rs.50,434/-). It is the case of the petitioner that the said sum of Rs.95,661/- exactly matches with the amount proposed to be added under section 36(1)(va) of the Act vide communication dated 03.01.2020. 4.7. It is the case of the petitioner that the said sum of Rs.95,661/- exactly matches with the amount proposed to be added under section 36(1)(va) of the Act vide communication dated 03.01.2020. 4.7. The petitioner, upon realizing the error that had crept in the Tax Audit Report uploaded on 29.05.2019, obtained another Tax Audit Report from the Chartered Accountant concerned on 20.01.2020 and the same was also uploaded on the Income Tax portal on 20.01.2020 and the petitioner, on the very same day, furnished the return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.40,43,951/- and after taking credit of TDS, the petitioner was eligible for refund of Rs.5,05,750/-. 4.8. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing revised return of income (i.e. return filed on 20.01.2020) whereby, the petitioner had raised a claim on refund of Rs.5,05,750/-. However, the respondent vide impugned order dated 28.06.2023 passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act rejected the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the year under consideration whereby, the petitioner raised claim of refund for the year under consideration. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 6.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was compelled to file revised return so as to correct the data mentioned in the Form 3CD, more particularly, in column 20b wherein, details of contribution received from employees for provident fund and due date for payment were wrongly mentioned by stating the incorrect year. It was submitted that in the first original return, instead of the year 2017, year 2016 was mentioned. Thereafter, another mistake was committed while filing the revised return by mentioning the due date as 15.08.2107 instead of 15.08.2017 and therefore, there was a delay in filing the revised return with correct due dates for payment of provident fund in column 20b of the Form 3CD. 6.2. It was submitted that it is not in the control of the petitioner to file Form 3CD as the same is filed by the Chartered Accountant appointed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was required to file the revised return in view of the incorrect date shown in the Form 3CD by the Chartered Accountant. 6.3. 6.2. It was submitted that it is not in the control of the petitioner to file Form 3CD as the same is filed by the Chartered Accountant appointed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was required to file the revised return in view of the incorrect date shown in the Form 3CD by the Chartered Accountant. 6.3. It was submitted that the respondent- Assessing Authority without considering such menial technical mistakes in the Form 3CD, ought to have condoned the delay occurred in filing the revised return with correct dates mentioned in the Form 3CD. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani for the respondent submitted that the respondent-Authority has rightly rejected the application to condone the delay in filing the revised return while exercising the powers under Section 119(2)(b) by relying upon the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes as the petitioner-assessee has failed to show the genuine hardships for delay occurred in filing the revised returns. It was also submitted that repeated lapses on part of the petitioner cannot be the reason to condone the delay on ground of genuine hardships. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioner was not responsible for mentioning the incorrect dates in the Form 3CD as the same was issued by the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner wherein, the mistakes were committed in mentioning the due dates for payment of provident fund in Column 20(b) in Form 3CD. It is a known fact that the due date of payment of the provident fund is always the 15 day of the Month and when the audit report is for Financial Year 2017-18, then the year would be 2017 only, but inadvertently, the Chartered Accountant has shown the year as 2016 which is a mistake committed, moreover, in the second revised return also, in stead of year 2017, year 2107 was stated by mistake and therefore, the petitioner was required to file third revised audit report in Form 3CD along with the revised returns. The respondent-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, ought to have considered such fact and ought to have condoned the delay in filing the return of income by the petitioner considering such fact but for the filing of revised return, the petitioner would not have been able to get the refund considering the due date of payment of the Provident Fund as per the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. 9. It also appears that the respondent has given a vague reason while rejecting the application to condone the delay as under : “4.1 Vide circular No.9/2015 F.No.3 12/22/2015-01 dated 09.062015, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has clearly specified that at the time of considering the case under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, it shall be ensured that the case is of the genuine hardship on merits. In this case, the reason for the inordinate delay in filing of returns for A.Y. 2018-19 as stated by the applicant does not seem to be genuine. Filing an Income-tax Return within the prescribed time limit and timely compliance of notice issued is the rule and condonation of delay is an exception. Thus, while condoning the delay, the authorities must be cautious and only on genuine reasons, the authorities are empowered to condone the delay. The power of discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judiciously. The reasons furnished for condonation of delay must be candid and convincing. However, the reason stated by the assessee is not found to be good enough reason for condonation of delay in filing of return of income as statutory time limits fixed have to be adhered to, as it ensures timely completion of assessments. Discipline on time limits regarding filing of returns have to be complied and respected, unless compelling and good reasons are shown and established for grant of extension of time which cannot be claimed as a vested right on mere asking. Routine, liberal and overindulgent approach in condoning delay would open floodgates of applications, completely throwing the tax assessment and recovery machinery out of gear. 5. Further, condoning the delay in routine manner may result in unnecessarily encouraging lapses. Therefore, in absence of genuine and satisfactory reasons, the applicant's request to condone the delay in filing of return of income is found to be not acceptable.” 10. 5. Further, condoning the delay in routine manner may result in unnecessarily encouraging lapses. Therefore, in absence of genuine and satisfactory reasons, the applicant's request to condone the delay in filing of return of income is found to be not acceptable.” 10. On perusal of the above reasons, it is apparent that the respondent has not considered the facts of the case and only on the basis of the contents of the Circular No.9/2015 has rejected the application to condone the delay filed by the petitioner. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the respondent ought to have condoned the delay in filing the revised return by the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to claim the refund as per the return of income filed by the petitioner, failing which, the amount of Provident Fund deposited by the petitioner would be considered as time barred resulting into disallowance under Section 36(1)(v) of the Act. 12. The impugned order is therefore, quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent to pass a fresh de-novo order to condone the delay in filing the revised return within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.