SUMAN DEVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the respondents have ample powers to condone the delay of an assessee if sufficient reasons are found, as per Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court referred to Circular 9/2015, which outlines conditions for condonation, including ensuring the income/loss declared and refund claimed are correct and genuine, and that the case involves genuine hardship on merits. The Court found that the petitioner, being a widow running a small business, had adequately explained the delay. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to treat the return filed by the petitioner for AY 2021-22 as filed within time. The respondents were granted liberty to question the assessment on law but not on limitation.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Suman Devi, is the proprietor of a firm engaged in trading herbs and Ayurvedic plants, registered under GST. She filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of her application for condonation of a 15-day delay in filing her Income Tax return for Assessment Year 2021-22. The petitioner argued that her total gross income, after deductions, was below Rs. 2,50,000, and she had TDS of Rs. 77,220. She is a widow running a small business in a small town, and the delay was attributed to computer issues requiring recomputation of accounts. The Revenue opposed the condonation, stating that time limits must be followed and sympathy alone is insufficient.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the respondents have ample power under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to condone a 15-day delay in filing the Income Tax return for Assessment Year 2021-22, considering the petitioner's circumstances and the nature of the delay? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the respondents possess ample power under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone such a small delay, especially in a peculiar matter involving genuine hardship. - Reasons for the delay, including computer crashing and recomputation of accounts, were adequately explained. - The petitioner is a widow running a small business and the delay was only 15 days. Revenue's Contentions: - The respondents opposed the condonation, arguing that a time limit was not followed by the petitioner. - They contended that delay cannot be condoned merely on the ground of sympathy.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 16/04/2024
The petitioner in this writ petition emerges the facts that the petitioner is the proprietor of the firm, who is engaged in trading of herbs and certain plants required for Ayurved. The firm was registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017. The only point raised is that the petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing the return of the assessment year 2021-22 which is within the purview of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1961’) whereby the delay of 15 days was sought to be condoned. The petitioner claimed that after the standard deductions, the total gross income was below (Uploaded on 19/04/2024 at 01:10:09 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:01:34 AM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16326-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-2554/2024] Rs.2,50,000/- and the petitioner had acquired a total TDS of Rs.77,220/- which was also reflected in Form 26AS.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has given ample reasons for the delay of 15 days in filing the return for the assessment year 2021-2022 as petitioner is a widow and is running a small business in a small town. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the reason for the delay includes the crashing of the computer at the time of preparation of the accounts and then the same was required to be recomputed. He further submits that the respondents had ample power particularly under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act of 1961 and thus such a small delay in a peculiar matter ought to have been condoned.
The counsel for the respondents opposes on the ground that there is a time limit which needs to be followed and the same was not followed by the petitioner and thus, merely on the ground of sympathy the delay cannot be condoned.
The issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this court is trivial. This Court finds that the respondents have ample powers to condone the delay of the assessee, if sufficient reasons are found.
At this juncture, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the Circular 9/2015 [F.No.312/22/2015-OT], Dated 09.06.2015 as hereunder: - "SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961- INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES - INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REFUND CLAIM AND CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD LOSSES UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) CIRCULAR 9/2015 [F.NO.312/22/2015-OT], DATED 9- 6-2015 (Uploaded on 19/04/2024 at 01:10:09 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:01:34 AM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16326-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-2554/2024] …...
The powers of acceptance/rejection of the application within the monetary limits delegated to the Pr.CCsIT/CCsIT/Pr.CsIT/CsIT in case of such claims will be subject to Following conditions: i. At the time of considering the case under Section 119(2)(b), it shall be ensured that the income/loss declared and/or refund claimed is correct and genuine and also that the case is of genuine hardship on merits. ii. …...”
The petitioner is a widow and is running a very small business of herbs and was at a loss in the year when she was running this business as a proprietor of the firm. As the delay in filing the return has been adequately explained by stating the complete factual matrix, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed while quashing the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure-1). The respondents are directed to treat the return filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2021-2022 within time. It is needless to say that the respondents shall be at a liberty to question the assessment on law but not on the limitation.
All pending applications stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 7-Dharmendra Rakhecha & poonamS/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 19/04/2024 at 01:10:09 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:01:34 AM)
More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Pushpa Chandra Raj Singhvi Charitable… vs CIT(Exemption), Income Tax Appellate TribunaITA 8820/MUM/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Pratik Deepak Agarwal, Lonavla vs Assessing Officer, Ward 9(3), Akurdi, PuneITA 2227/PUN/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2025-2026
- Pushpa Bitan Friendship Society, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, KolkataITA 2607/KOL/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Tiong Woon Project & Contracting Pte Ltd… vs ACIT, Intl. Taxn. Circle-2(2), ChennaiITA 1883/CHNY/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026