# Deen Bandhu & Ors v. Addl. Commissioner J Faizabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 606
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-31
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3000108 of 1998
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deen-bandhu-ors-v-addl-commissioner-j-faizabad-ors-53614
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
Impugned orders and inaction on the part of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also the
action of the District Revenue Authorities by
which they have proceeded to take possession
and allot the same.
Headnotes
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976sec. 10 (2), 31, 3 (2) and (3)- land only
recorded as irrigated in khasra 1378 fasli, 1379
fasli- but impugned order wrongly held that the
entire land is irrigated-mere entry in khasra of
1381 fasli and 1372 fasli about the installation
of the government tubewell do not mean that
the land belonging to the original tenure holder
is irrigated -the land is neither irrigated nor is
capable of yielding two crops -these evidence
have been ignored-prescribed authority misread
and misinterpreted the provisions of Section 31
(2) of the Act 1975-determination of surplus
land could only be held within two yearsimpugned
orders are illegal and invalid. W.P. allowed. (E9)
Case Law Cited
Nil
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976
List of Keywords
Surplus land; irrigated land; unirrigated land.
7 All. Deen Bandhu & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner J Faizabad & Ors.
607

## Text

606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
incorporation in the name of Nagar Palika
is forged and fabricated and ignored the
report of the Tehsildar and Lekhpal dated
24.6.1998 (Annexure 10 to the writ
petition), therefore, the impugned orders
suffer from apparent illegality and are
liable to be set aside.

16. There is no rational justification on
the part of the Sub Divisional Magistrate
and Commissioner not the consider the
report of the Tehsildar and Lekhpal dated
24.6.1998 and due to non consideration of
report, the impugned orders suffer from
vices of merit and are liable to be set aside.

17. On overall consideration of the
matter, I am of the opinion that the
impugned orders dated 7.6.2003 and
31.3.2005 are not justifiable in law,
therefore, the same are hereby quashed.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

18. It is provided that the respondent
No.2 shall pass a fresh order in accordance
with law, taking into consideration the
report of the Tehsildar dated 24.6.1998, if
possible, within a period of six months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 606
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 3000108 of 1998

Deen Bandhu & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner J Faizabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
A.R.Khan, Aasif Razzaque Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
Impugned orders and inaction on the part of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also the
action of the District Revenue Authorities by
which they have proceeded to take possession
and allot the same.
Headnotes
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976sec. 10 (2), 31, 3 (2) and (3)- land only
recorded as irrigated in khasra 1378 fasli, 1379
fasli- but impugned order wrongly held that the
entire land is irrigated-mere entry in khasra of
1381 fasli and 1372 fasli about the installation
of the government tubewell do not mean that
the land belonging to the original tenure holder
is irrigated -the land is neither irrigated nor is
capable of yielding two crops -these evidence
have been ignored-prescribed authority misread
and misinterpreted the provisions of Section 31
(2) of the Act 1975-determination of surplus
land could only be held within two yearsimpugned
orders are illegal and invalid. W.P. allowed. (E9)
Case Law Cited
Nil
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976
List of Keywords
Surplus land; irrigated land; unirrigated land.
7 All. Deen Bandhu & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner J Faizabad & Ors.
607
(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs :-

"(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
order
dated
14.7.1998
contained in Annexure-2, order dated
26.3.1993 contained in Annexure-3, the
order
dated
27.2.1986
contained
in
Annexure-4, the part of the order dated
7.12.1991 passed by the opposite parties
no. 1 and 2 and also the revised notice
dated 28.2.1983 and the entire proceedings
after summoning the original from the
opposite parties.

(ii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties not the
implement the order dated 14.7.1998,
19.1.1998, 26.3.93, 27.2.86 and 7.12.1991
and also not to dispossess the petitioners
from the land in question and also not allot
the same to any one.

(iii) issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
interim
mandamus
commanding
the
opposite
parties not the implement the order dated
14.7.1998, 19.1.1998, 26.3.93, 27.2.86 and
7.12.1991 and also not to dispossess the
petitioners from the land in question and
also not allot the same to any one.

(iv)...

(v)..."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
prescribed authority declared 21.7.33 acres
of land as surplus vide order dated
27.2.1986. Against the said order, an
appeal was filed, wherein stay was granted
vide order dated 19.5.1986. Thereafter, the
appeal was allowed and the prescribed
authority was directed to decide the issue
afresh vide order dated 7.12.1991.

4. A revised notice was issued on
28.2.1983 under Section 10 (2) of the Act.
On 26.3.1993, an order was passed by the
Chief Revenue Officer, Bahraich in Case
No.751/35/34 under Section 10 (2) of the
Act. Vide order dated 19.9.1995, an order
was
passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Faizabad
Division, Faizabad in Ceiling Appeal
No.497/ Bahraich (Nakchhad Prasad Vs.
State of U.P.).

5. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the present writ
petition has been filed challenging the
impugned orders and inaction on the part of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also the action
of the District Revenue Authorities by
which they have proceeded to take
possession and allot the same. The
impugned order passed by the respondent
No.1 is nullity as it has been passed against
a dead person. The said order is also
without jurisdiction as no order on merit
could be passed unless, the legal heirs of
the deceased party are substituted and
brought on record, besides the same is also
in violation of principles of natural justice.
The order passed by the prescribed
authority is also contrary to the provision of
Section 4-A of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holding Act and thus, the same
are also illegal and invalid. The respondent
No.1 has proceeded arbitrarily to exercise
the jurisdiction and power upon an
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application moved for recall of ex-parte
order by rejecting it but substituting the
petitioners, although the said order was
passed against a dead person, vide an order
dated 14.7.1998. The certified copy of the
orders dated 14.7.1998, 19.1.1998 and
26.3.1993 are enclosed as Annexures-1, 2
and 3 to the writ petition.

6. In response to a notice issued under
Section 10(2) of the Act, the petitioners'
father filed an objection before the
prescribed authority, stating therein that he
had no surplus land and also mentioned
detailed facts therein upon which the
prescribed authority passed an order dated
30.6.1976.

A revised notice was again issued
on 28.2.1983 under Section 10 (2) of the
Act and on receipt of the same, the
petitioners' father again filed an objection
stating therein that revised notice dated
28.2.1983 is barred by limitation in view of
the provisions of Sections 31, 3 (2) and (3)
of the U.P. Act No.20 of 1976. It had also
been pleaded that the entire land belonging
to him is also unirrigated but the same has
wrongly been shown as irrigated. In
objection it has also been shown as
unirrigated. In objection it was also pleaded
that the land belonging to the adult sons
and who are also residing separately ought
not to have been clubbed with his holding
and no fresh determination could be held as
the prescribed authority had already passed
an order dated 30.6.1976 upon the original
notice issued to him. Besides the above, it
was further pleaded that the land which had
already been transferred could not be
treated of his land, thereby clubbing the
same with his holding.

7. It is submitted that subsequently, an
application for impleadment was also given
by
Buddho,
Deen
Mohamman,
Jaan
Mohammad, Wali Mohammad, sons of
Qasim
Ali,
Duber
Ameen
son
of
Mustaqeem on 13.5.1983, which was
allowed.

8. After framing the issues, the
prescribed authority proceeded to record
the evidence. The objector examined
himself (Nakchhed Prasad), Jamuna Prasad
and Buddho and also filed the Khatauni
extracts for the 1383 fasli to 1394 fasli
relating to khata Nos.76, 64 and 70 of gram
Akhtiyarapur, certificate of Apar Primary
Examination Chhatra Lekha Pramau Patra,
so issued by the Gandhi Inter College,
Bahraich,
original
sale
deed
dated
10.3.1981 whereas, the State of U.P.
examined
Chhotan
Lal,
Supervisor,
Kanoongo Nanpara, the then Lekhpal
Akhtiyarapur, Sri Gopalji Lekhpal, Bhilora
Basu and also filed khatauni of Gram
Jagdishpur for the 1387 fasli to 1392 fasli
of khata Nos.88, 122, 123, 125, 127 and
128.

9. The prescribed authority declared
21.733 Acres of land as surplus vide order
dated 27.2.1986. Against the said order, an
appeal was filed, wherein stay was granted
vide order dated 19.5.1986 and thereafter,
vide order dated 7.12.1991, the appeal was
allowed and the prescribed authority was
directed to decide afresh.

10.
Thereafter,
the
prescribed
authority again rejected the objection dated
5.2.1993 filed by Buddho vide order dated
22.3.1993 and also rejected the objection
filed by the tenure holder vide ex-parte
order dated 26.3.1993. Against the said
order, an appeal was filed before the
Commissioner, wherein interim stay order
was passed on 19.9.1995. During the
pendency of the appeal, the original tenure
7 All. Deen Bandhu & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner J Faizabad & Ors.
609
holder Sri Nakchhed died, leaving behind
the petitioners as his legal heirs and
representatives on 17.11.1997.

11. The respondent No.1 proceeded in
absence of the petitioner and dismissed the
appeal on merit vide order dated 19.1.1998.

12. It is submitted that the petitioners
had no knowledge about the date fixed in
the appeal as such they could not appear
and take necessary steps and the appeal was
decided ex-parte on merit. As and when the
petitioners came to know about the
aforesaid
decision
on
appeal,
they
immediately moved an application for
substitution and recall of the said order in
appeal. The application for recall was
rejected vide order dated 14.7.1998.

13. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the respondent No.1
proceeded in most arbitrary manner thereby
rejecting the application for recall of the
order by ignoring the fact that the appellate
order dated 19.1.1998 is an ex-parte order
and has been passed even without hearing
the appellants' counsel. It is further
submitted that a notice under Section 10 (2)
of the Act was issued and the prescribed
authority passed an order dated 30.6.1976
and thereafter, time barred revised notice
was issued on 28.2.1983 and the prescribed
authority passed an order determining the
surplus land on 27.2.1986 and thus, the
entire proceedings are void abinitio.

14. It is further submitted that the
prescribed
authority
misread
and
misinterpreted the provisions of Section 31
(2) of the U.P. Act No.20 of 1975 in
rejecting the petitioners' plea that the entire
proceedings are barred by time, holding
that the same are not barred by time. Next
submission is that the determination of
surplus land could only be held within two
years from 17.1.1975/10.10.1975, on the
basis of revised notice, even if earlier
proceeding was stayed by the prescribed
authority but in the present case it has not
been done and thus, entire proceeding
vitiated.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the respondents have failed
to consider that the land belonging to major
sons could not be clubbed with the holding
of the original tenure holder as is being
done in the present case. The partition
between the original tenure holder and the
major sons who were coparceners was
already held long ago and were residing
separately but the courts below failed to
consider the same while passing the
impugned order. The courts below have
wrongly rejected the plea that a substantial
piece of land had already been transferred
under
unrevocable
transaction
vide
executing registered sale deed for an
adequate consideration, in good faith not
being benami and sham transaction, in
favour of a stranger and thus the impugned
orders are illegal and invalid.

16. Submission is that the appellate
court was not justified in remanding the
matter only on the question of irrigation/
unirregation, however, all the above points
are purely legal and could be raised
subsequently, but the respondent No.1
erred in law in not deciding the same. It is
also submitted that the State failed to lead
evidence and discharge the burden of proof
that the entire land is irrigated capable of
yielding two crops in a fasli year and two
crops have been yielded in 1378, 1379 and
1380 fasli in view of the provisions of
Section 4-A of the Act, but the courts
below have wrongly held the entire land as
irrigated land.
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. It is submitted that the original
tenure holder had the oral and documentary
evidence, thereby proved that the entire
land is unirrigated and is not capable of
yielding two crops but the courts below
have wrongly held otherwise and thus, the
impugned orders are illegal and invalid.

18. Further submission is that on
perusal of the impugned orders, it shows
that land of plot Nos.418 area 10 and plot
No.421 area 0.80 were only recorded as
irrigated in khasra 1378 fasli, 1379 fasli but
even then it has wrongly been held that the
entire land is irrigated and thus, the
impugned orders are illegal and invalid.

19. It is submitted that a mere entry in
khasra of 1381 fasli and 1372 fasli about
the installation of the government tubewell
by Sri Haridei and Munna Lal do not mean
that the land belonging to the original
tenure holder is irrigated as deposed by
Triveni Prasad, Lekhpal, unless it is proved
that the same comes within the effective
command area and it had also been
irrigated in any of the fasli year of 1378,
1379 and 1380 fasli but the same has not
been proved and thus, the impugned order
are illegal and invalid. It is further
submitted that the aforesaid land is neither
irrigated nor is capable of yielding two
crops and two crops were not yielded in
any of the 1378 fasli, 1379 fasli and 1380
fasli and it does not comes in effect
command area and it has also not have
been irrigated but the courts below have
wrongly held otherwise.

20. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the order dated
19.1.1998 has been passed against a dead
person and thus, the same are nullity.

21. On the other hand, learned
Standing
Counsel
submits
that
the
impugned orders are just and valid and
does not suffer from any infirmity or
illegality.

22. After having heard the submission
advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
I perused the material on record.

23. On perusal of the contents of the
writ petition as also the submission so
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioners, it is evident that the present
writ petition has been filed challenging the
impugned orders and inaction on the part of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also the action
of the District Revenue Authorities by
which they have proceeded to take
possession and allot the same. The
impugned order passed by the respondent
No.1 is nullity as it has been passed against
a dead person. The said order is also
without jurisdiction as no order on merit
could be passed unless, the legal heirs of
the deceased party are substituted and
brought on record, besides the same is also
in violation of principles of natural justice,
therefore, the order being passed against a
dead person and without issuing notice and
opportunity of hearing, the same is liable to
be quashed on this ground alone.

24. The order passed by the prescribed
authority is also contrary to the provision of
Section 4-A of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holding Act and thus, the same
are also illegal and invalid. The respondent
No.1 has proceeded arbitrarily to exercise
the jurisdiction and power upon an
application moved for recall of ex-parte
order by rejecting the same. The said order
was passed against a dead person, vide an
order dated 14.7.1998. The orders dated
14.7.1998, 19.1.1998 and 26.3.1993 are
Annexures-1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition.

25. In response to a notice issued
under Section 10(2) of the Act, the
7 All. Deen Bandhu & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner J Faizabad & Ors.
611
petitioners' father filed an objection before
the prescribed authority, stating therein that
he had no surplus land and also mentioned
detailed facts therein upon which the
prescribed authority passed an order dated
30.6.1976. A revised notice was again
issued on 28.2.1983 under Section 10 (2) of
the Act and on receipt of the same, the
petitioners' father again filed an objection
stating therein that revised notice dated
28.2.1983 is barred by limitation in view of
the provisions of Sections 31, 3 (2) and (3)
of the U.P. Act No.20 of 1976. The entire
land belonging to him is also unirrigated
but the same has wrongly been shown as
irrigated. In objection it has also been
shown as unirrigated. In objection it was
also pleaded that the land belonging to the
adult sons and who are also residing
separately ought not to have been clubbed
with his holding and no fresh determination
could be held as the prescribed authority
had
already
passed
an
order
dated
30.6.1976 upon the original notice issued to
him.

26. An application for impleadment
was
also
given
by
Buddho,
Deen
Mohamman,
Jaan
Mohammad,
Wali
Mohammad, sons of Qasim Ali, Duber
Ameen son of Mustaqeem on 13.5.1983,
which was allowed. After framing the
issues, the prescribed authority proceeded
to record the evidence. The objector
examined himself (Nakchhed Prasad),
Jamuna Prasad and Buddho and also filed
the Khatauni extracts for the 1383 fasli to
1394 fasli relating to khata Nos.76, 64 and
70 of gram Akhtiyarapur, certificate of
Apar Primary Examination Chhatra Lekha
Pramau Patra, so issued by the Gandhi Inter
College, Bahraich, original sale deed dated
10.3.1981 whereas, the State of U.P.
examined
Chhotan
Lal,
Supervisor,
Kanoongo Nanpara, the then Lekhpal
Akhtiyarapur, Sri Gopalji Lekhpal, Bhilora
Basu and also filed khatauni of Gram
Jagdishpur for the 1387 fasli to 1392 fasli
of khata Nos.88, 122, 123, 125, 127 and
128.

27. The prescribed authority declared
21.733 Acres of land as surplus vide order
dated 27.2.1986. Against the said order, an
appeal was filed, wherein stay was granted
vide order dated 19.5.1986 and thereafter,
vide order dated 7.12.1991, the appeal was
allowed and the prescribed authority was
directed to decide afresh. This clearly
demonstrates that the impugned orders
have been passed, ignoring all these
materials,
therefore,
they
are
not
sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable
to be set aside.

28. The prescribed authority again
rejected the objection dated 5.2.1993 filed
by Buddho vide order dated 22.3.1993 and
also rejected the objection filed by the
tenure holder vide ex-parte order dated
26.3.1993. Against the said order, an
appeal was filed before the Commissioner,
wherein interim stay order was passed on
19.9.1995. During the pendency of the
appeal, the original tenure holder Sri
Nakchhed
died,
leaving
behind
the
petitioners
as
his
legal
heirs
and
representatives on 17.11.1997.

29. The respondent No.1 proceeded in
absence of the petitioner and dismissed the
appeal on merit vide order dated 19.1.1998.
The petitioners had no knowledge about the
date fixed in the appeal and they could not
appear, thus, the appeal was decided exparte on merit. The application for recall
was
also
rejected
vide
order
dated
14.7.1998, therefore, the ex-parte order
passed without substituting the legal heirs,
is wholly illegal and arbitrary and is liable
to be set aside.
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. The respondent No.1 proceeded in
most arbitrary manner thereby rejecting the
application for recall of the order by
ignoring the fact that the appellate order
dated 19.1.1998 is an ex-parte order and
has been passed even without hearing the
appellants' counsel. A notice under Section
10 (2) of the Act was issued and the
prescribed authority passed an order dated
30.6.1976 and thereafter, time barred
revised notice was issued on 28.2.1983 and
the prescribed authority passed an order
determining the surplus land on 27.2.1986
and thus, the entire proceedings are void
abinitio.

31. The prescribed authority misread
and misinterpreted the provisions of
Section 31 (2) of the U.P. Act No.20 of
1975 in rejecting the petitioners' plea that
the entire proceedings are barred by time,
holding that the same are not barred by
time. The determination of surplus land
could only be held within two years from
17.1.1975/10.10.1975, on the basis of
revised notice, even if earlier proceeding
was stayed by the prescribed authority but
in the present case it has not been done and
thus, entire proceeding vitiated in law.

32. The respondents have failed to
consider that the land belonging to major
sons could not be clubbed with the holding
of the original tenure holder as is being
done in the present case. The partition
between the original tenure holder and the
major sons who were coparceners was
already held long ago and were residing
separately but the courts below failed to
consider the same while rejecting the
appeal. The courts below have wrongly
rejected the plea that a substantial piece of
land had already been transferred under
unrevocable transaction vide executing
registered sale deed for an adequate
consideration, in good faith not being
benami and sham transaction, in favour of a
stranger and thus the impugned orders are
illegal and invalid.

33. The appellate court was not
justified in remanding the matter only on
the question of irrigation/ unirregation,
however, all the above points are purely
legal and could be raised subsequently, but
the respondent No.1 erred in law in not
deciding the same. The State failed to lead
evidence and discharge the burden of proof
that the entire land is irrigated capable of
yielding two crops in a fasli year and two
crops have been yielded in 1378, 1379 and
1380 fasli in view of the provisions of
Section 4-A of the Act, but the courts
below have wrongly held the entire land as
irrigated land.

34. The original tenure holder had the
oral and documentary evidence, thereby
proving that the entire land is unirrigated
and is not capable of yielding two crops but
the courts below have wrongly held
otherwise and thus, the impugned orders
are illegal and invalid and are liable to be
quashed on this ground also.

35. In the impugned orders, it shows
that land of plot Nos.418 area 10 and plot
No.421 area 0.80 were only recorded as
irrigated in khasra 1378 fasli, 1379 fasli but
even then it has wrongly been held that the
entire land is irrigated and thus, the
impugned orders are not sustainable in the
eyes of law. A mere entry in khasra of 1381
fasli and 1372 fasli about the installation of
the government tubewell by Sri Haridei and
Munna Lal do not mean that the land
belonging to the original tenure holder is
irrigated as deposed by Triveni Prasad,
Lekhpal, unless it is proved that the same
comes within the effective command area
7 All. Cell Com Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
613
and it had also been irrigated in any of the
fasli year of 1378, 1379 and 1380 fasli but
the same has not been proved and thus, the
impugned order are liable to be set aside.
The land is neither irrigated nor is capable
of yielding two crops and two crops were
not yielded in any of the 1378 fasli, 1379
fasli and 1380 fasli. All these evidence
have been ignored by the respondent Nos.1
and 2.

36. On overall consideration of facts
and circumstances of the entire record, it is
evident that the impugned orders suffer
from apparent illegality and are liable to be
set aside, therefore, they are hereby set
aside. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.

37. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 613
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ Tax No. 278 of 2024

Cell Com Teleservices Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Rahul Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Manu Ghildyal

Issue for Consideration
The dispute revolves around the interpretation
of "genuine hardship" in the context of the
petitioner seeking to avail the beneficial
concessional tax rate under section 115BAA.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(PCIT)
rejected
the
petitioner's
application
for
condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC for the
Assessment year 2020-21, concluding that the
company was not facing "genuine hardship".

Headnotes
Tax matter-Income Tax Act,1961-Section
119(2)(b)-Rejection
of
Delay
Condonation-The delay was attributed to
the unavailability of the person handling
tax matters due to severe personal
difficulties, including the death of the
family members-The Court quashed the
PCIT order and allowing the petitioner to
file
Form10-IC
and
receive
the
consequential relief.

Held
The court held that the "genuine hardship" must
be construed liberally to ensure an assessee's
substantive right to a beneficial tax provision is
not defeated by a mere procedural lapse-The
requirement to file Form 10-IC prior to the ITR
is not mandatory if genuine hardship is
established for the delay-Impugned order
quashed.(Para 18 to 21) (E-6)

Case law Cited
B.M. Malani Vs Commr. of Income Tax & Anr
(2008) 10 SCC 617; Gujarat Electric Co. Ltd. Vs
CIT [2002] 255 ITR 396; K.S. Bilawala Ors. Vs
Principal Commr. of Income Tax 17, Mumbai &
Ors (Writ Petition (1) No. 32261 of 2023);
Sitaldas K Motwani Vs Dir. Gen. of Income Tax
& Ors (2009) SCC OnLine Bom 2195); R/Special
Civil Application No. 3445 of 2024; Deepak
Pragjibhai Gondaliya Vs Principal Commr. of
Income Tax Vododara 1; Sitaldas K Motwani Vs
Dir. Gen. of Income Tax (International Taxation)
[2010]
187
Taxman
44{=323
ITR
223
(Bombay)}; Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank
Ltd., Vs CBDT [2010] 195 Taxman 106{=332
ITR 87 (Bom.); Pankaj Kailash Agarwal Vs Asst.
Commr. of Income Tax [2024] 464 ITR 65
(Bombay); Principal Commr. of Income Tax Vs
Wipro Ltd 446 ITR 1 (SC); MRF Ltd Vs Central
Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi; Pankaj
Kailash Agarwal Vs Asst. Commr. of Income Tax
& Ors ;2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1025-referred to.