Asheesh Kumar Jain vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/12553/2024HC Madhya Pradesh02 May 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA2 pages
For Petitioner: Uma Parashar
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 04.12.2023 for the limited purpose of allowing the petitioner to file relevant documents in support of his application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Court directed the Principal Commissioner to reconsider the application afresh after the petitioner submits all supporting material within two weeks. The Court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of either party's contentions and the Principal Commissioner was free to reconsider the application without being influenced by the present order. All rights and contentions of the parties were reserved. The Court did not decide on the merits of the delay condonation application itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Asheesh Kumar Jain, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. This order rejected the petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently, did not condone the delay in filing the return for the assessment year 2022-2023. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present supporting material for his application, citing illness and family medical exigencies as reasons for the delayed filing. The revenue contended that sufficient evidence was not produced before the Principal Commissioner. The High Court noted that the petitioner had produced some medical certificates and prescriptions and also raised other grounds of hardship.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for condonation of delay in filing the return for assessment year 2022-2023, was rightly rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee argued that he was seeking an opportunity to produce material to demonstrate bonafide grounds and genuine hardship, including personal illness and family medical exigencies, which prevented timely filing. The revenue contended that despite opportunities, sufficient evidence was not produced before the Principal Commissioner to support the application for condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF ON THE 2nd OF MAY, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 12553 of 2024 ASHEESH KUMAR JAIN Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Uma Parashar - Advocate for Petitioner. Shri H.S. Gupta - Advocate for Respondents (through VC). ORDER Per: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva 1. Petitioner impugns order dated 04.12.2023, whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act has been rejected and the delay in filing the return of the assessment year 2022-2023 has not been condoned. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is seeking only one opportunity to produce material in support of the application under Section 119(2) (b) of the Act to show the bonafide grounds as well as the genuine hardship, on account of which the return could not be filed in time. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was unwell for a substantial period of time and also on account of medial exigency in the family, the return could not be filed within time. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the delay in filing the return can be condoned under specific circumstances. He submits that despite opportunity sufficient evidence was not produced before the Principal 1 WP-12553-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20540 Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 05-05-2025 13:41:25 Signature Not Verified

(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) JUDGE (VINAY SARAF) JUDGE Commissioner at the time of consideration of the application under Section 119(2) (b) of the Act. 4. Petitioner before us has produced certain medical certificates, prescription and also raised another grounds for showing hardship and in ability to file return in time. 5. We deem it expedient to direct the Petitioner to file the relevant documents in support of application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Principal Commissioner to enable him to reconsider the application in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 04.12.2023 is set aside only for the limited purpose of enabling the petitioner to produce material and for the Principal Commissioner to reconsider the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act afresh. 7. Petitioner shall file all material that petitioner seeks to place reliance upon within a period of two weeks' from today and the Principal Commissioner shall thereafter expeditiously consider the application in accordance with law. 8. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of contention of either party and the Principal Commissioner would be at liberty to reconsider the application without being influenced by anything stated on merits in this order. 9. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. Shub

2 WP-12553-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20540 Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 05-05-2025 13:41:25 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →