Prabhat Agarwal vs. Income Tax Department

PDF · subscribers
WP/35122/2025HC Madhya Pradesh30 October 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK4 pages
For Petitioner: Rishikesh Sharma[P-1]For Respondent: Harshavardhan Topre
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter requires reconsideration. It noted that the father's demise in 2019, followed by the Covid-19 pandemic, constituted a force majeure event that led to a genuine hardship for the petitioner. The Court found that the impugned orders, which rejected the petitioner's prayer to submit returns for AY 2020-21 to 2023-24, should be set aside. The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances and the Court's observations. The respondents were also granted liberty to impose appropriate fine/penalty for the delay. The Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as costs in favour of the Juvenile Justice Fund within one month. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prabhat Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging orders dated 22.10.2024 that rejected his applications for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24. The petitioner's father, late Shri Bhagwan Das Agrawal, who managed the family's construction business (M/s Shri Durga Construction), passed away on 09.01.2019. Consequently, the petitioner, as the legal heir, could not file the returns for the business. He applied for condonation of delay under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 25.07.2024, but his applications were rejected by the Income Tax Department.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 22.10.2024, rejecting the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for AY 2020-21 to 2023-24, are liable to be quashed, and whether the petitioner should be allowed to file the returns for these years, turning on the interpretation and application of Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that no appeal is maintainable against orders declining the filing of income tax returns. He contended that due to unavoidable circumstances, specifically the death of his father and the subsequent impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, he could not file the returns. He expressed readiness to file the returns and bear any penalty imposed, seeking an opportunity to enter the tax regime. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (Income Tax Department) referred to Sections 119 and 153, particularly Section 153(1B), of the Act of 1961. They submitted that the department, after considering the facts, did not find a case of genuine hardship and therefore rightly rejected the petitioner's prayer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV ON THE 30th OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 35122 of 2025 PRABHAT AGARWAL Versus INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Rishikesh Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harshvardhan Topre - Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3. ORDER Per: Justice Anand Pathak With consent, heard finally. 2. Present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

I. That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed. II. That the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed in case numbers ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1069859810 (1) 2613 (A.Y. 2020-21), ITBA/COM/F/17/ 2024-25/1069859612 (1) 2616 (A.Y. 2021-22),

ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1069859510 (1) 2619 (A.Y. 2022-23), ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1069859351 (1) 2622 (A.Y. 2023-24) may kindly be quashed. III. That, the delay occurred in filing the income tax returns for Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022- 23, 2023-24 may kindly be condoned, the petitioner may kindly be allowed to file the income tax returns for said assessment years and the respondents may kindly be directed to accept the income tax returns for the said assessment years so filed and 1 WP-35122-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27495 Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 10/31/2025 4:21:28 PM Signature Not Verified

IV. Any other relief/direction/order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

3.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that father of the petitioner late Shri Bhagwan Das Agrawal was registered with the respondent Income Tax Department and was allotted PAN ABNPA8546M for the purpose of assessment by the department. Father of petitioner immediately before his demise was managing day to day affairs of the family owned business of constructions in the name of proprietorship concern M/s Shri Durga Construction. Father of the petitioner passed away on 09.01.2019. Therefore, income tax returns of the aforesaid business for Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 could not be filed with the Income Tax Department. Petitioner being the legal heir of late Shri Bhagwan Das Agrawal filed the application for condonation of delay in filing the income tax returnS for Assessment Years from 2020-21 till 2023-24 under Section 119 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'Act of 1961') on 25.07.2024 but in vain because vide impugned orders dt.22.10.2024 for respective Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 (collectively filed as Annexure P/1) prayer of the petitioner to submit returns got rejected. Against the said orders, petitioner is before this Court. 4 . It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that no appeal is maintainable against such orders declining filing of income tax returns. According to him, due to unavoidable circumstances petitioner could not file income tax returns for the period referred above in respect of Proprietorship concern run by late father of petitioner. He is ready to submit income tax 2 WP-35122-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27495 Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 10/31/2025 4:21:28 PM Signature Not Verified

returns and ready to bear penalty amount, if any imposed, provided and a chance be given to him to enter into tax regime. 5. Counsel for the respondents/Income Tax Department refers Section 119 as well as 153 of the Act of 1961 specially sub section (1B) of Section 153 to submit that if return is filed, then 12 months' period would be given to the respondents for assessment. However, respondents after considering the fact situation did not find the case of genuine hardship, therefore, rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner. 6. Heard. 7 . After considering the rival submissions and going through impugned orders dt.22.10.2024 for respective assessment years (collectively filed as Annexure P/1), it appears that father of the petitioner, who was taking care of filing of income tax return expired in 2019 and thereafter due to wrath of Covid-19 Pandemic, all activities came to a grinding halt. Petitioner and his construction activities were no exception. Therefore, it was a force majeure, which needs indulgence of the authorities in the present case because it appears that there was genuine hardship due to Covid-19 Pandemic. Said aspect deserves re-consideration. 8. Since five years has been prescribed for filing of return and attracts penal consequences/fine, therefore, petitioner can avail a chance to again come into formal economy and tax regime, so that he can file returns, which would in fact be beneficial for the department also. 9. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, matter requires re-consideration. Impugned orders dt.22.10.2024 for respective Assessment 3 WP-35122-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27495 Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 10/31/2025 4:21:28 PM Signature Not Verified

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE (PUSHPENDRA YADAV) JUDGE Years 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 (collectively filed as Annexure P/1) are hereby set aside and respondents are directed to reconsider the case of petitioner in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as observations made hereinabove. While deciding the case of the petitioner, respondents shall be at liberty to impose appropriate fine/penalty for such delay carried out by the petitioner. 10. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms, however, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to be deposited by the petitioner in favour of Juvenile Justice Fund having Saving Bank Account No.60411029562 of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Govindpura, Bhopal, IFSC Code MAHB0001988 (a statutory fund created for the welfare of juveniles) within one month. SP 4 WP-35122-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27495 Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 10/31/2025 4:21:28 PM Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →