Comparison of ITR-U (Section 139(8A)) and Condonation of Delay of ITR (Section 119(2)(b))

CA Varun Gupta , Last updated: 07 March 2025
Share

Introduction

The Income Tax Act, 1961, provides different mechanisms for taxpayers to address missed deadlines for filing Income Tax Returns (ITR). Two key provisions in this regard are:

ITR-U (Section 139(8A)) - Allows taxpayers to update their returns by paying additional tax.
Condonation of Delay (Section 119(2)(b)) - Provides relief for genuine hardships without additional tax liability.

While both options offer a way to rectify tax filing delays, condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) is often more beneficial as it does not require additional tax payments and allows the carry forward of losses and refunds.

Comparison of ITR-U (Section 139(8A)) and Condonation of Delay of ITR (Section 119(2)(b))

Key Differences between ITR-U and Condonation of Delay

Aspect	ITR-U (Section 139(8A))	Condonation of Delay (Section 119(2)(b))
Applicability	Available to all taxpayers, including individuals, businesses, and corporates.	Available only to genuine hardship cases where a valid reason for delay exists.
Additional Tax Liability	Taxpayers must pay an additional tax of 25% to 70% depending on the delay period.	No additional tax is required.
Reason for Delay	Not required; taxpayers can file without justification.	A valid reason for the delay (e.g., medical emergency, technical failure, natural calamity) must be provided.
Processing Time	Instant; once tax and interest are paid, the return is updated.	Time is required for approval; as per CBDT Circular No. 11/2024, a decision must be made within six months.
Time Limit for Filing	Allowed up to four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.	Applications must be filed within five years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
Loss Carry Forward	Losses cannot be carried forward.	Losses can be carried forward if condonation is granted.
Refund Claims	Not allowed; ITR-U cannot be filed to claim refunds.	Allowed; delayed refunds can be processed if condonation is approved.
Interest and Penalties	Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C applies, along with additional tax.	No penalty or interest if condonation is granted.
Complexity of Process	Simple, as it does not require approval; taxpayers can directly update their return.	Requires approval from the Principal Commissioner or CBDT, making the process more time-consuming.
Correction Scope	Used for correcting errors, omissions, or missed income reporting in earlier returns.	Used for genuine cases where taxpayers could not file their return on time for valid reasons.

Why Condonation of Delay is More Beneficial

While ITR-U provides an option to rectify past mistakes, condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) is often more advantageous due to the following reasons:

1. No additional tax burden: Unlike ITR-U, where additional tax (25%-70%) must be paid, condonation of delay does not require any extra tax.

2. Loss carry-forward allowed: If a taxpayer has incurred losses, condonation ensures they can be carried forward, unlike ITR-U where this is prohibited.

3. Refunds are possible: Under condonation, if excess tax was paid, the taxpayer can still claim a refund, which is not allowed under ITR-U.

4. More taxpayer-friendly: Since condonation is meant for genuine hardships, it provides a relief mechanism without financial penalties.

Practical Scenarios and Which Option to Choose

Scenario	Recommended Option
Taxpayer missed the ITR deadline but has a valid reason such as illness or technical failure.	Condonation of Delay (Section 119(2)(b))
Taxpayer failed to report additional income or needs to correct an error.	ITR-U (Section 139(8A))
Business suffered losses and taxpayer wants to carry them forward.	Condonation of Delay (Section 119(2)(b))
Taxpayer has excess tax deductions and wants a refund.	Condonation of Delay (Section 119(2)(b))
Taxpayer is willing to pay additional tax to update their return quickly.	ITR-U (Section 139(8A))

Conclusion

Both ITR-U and condonation of delay serve important purposes, but condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) is more beneficial in most cases as it does not impose additional tax burdens and allows the carry forward of losses and refunds. Taxpayers should carefully evaluate their situation and opt for the most suitable provision.

For more detailed insights, refer to the in-depth articles on:

The author can also be reached at varunmukeshgupta96@gmail.com