M/S BLUE APPLE IMAGE CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/10052/2025HC DelhiDLHC01044762202522 July 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court directed that the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, shall be decided by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The Court treated the present petition as seeking a direction to the CBDT to take a decision on the application filed under Section 119(2)(b). The Court noted the Petitioner's concession that the prayer should have been directed towards the CBDT. The reasoning was based on the Petitioner's submission and the need to address the pending compounding application. The operative direction was to the CBDT to decide the application within the stipulated timeframe. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Blue Apple Image Consultants Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a mandamus directing the Income Tax Office (Respondent) to adjudicate upon a compounding application dated October 21, 2024. This application was filed in compliance with a previous High Court order dated December 5, 2023. The petitioner had previously withdrawn a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 15151/2023) with liberty to file an application with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner conceded that the current prayer should have been for a direction to the CBDT to decide the application filed under Section 119(2)(b). The compounding application sought condonation of delay in filing the Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2014-15 and, alternatively, compounding of offences under Sections 276CC, 278B, and 278E of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the Respondent (Income Tax Office) to adjudicate upon the compounding application filed by the Petitioner. 2. Whether the Court should direct the Respondent to dispose of the compounding application within a fixed time frame, preferably within 30 days. Assessee's Contentions: The Petitioner argued that the compounding application was filed in compliance with the previous court order and sought a direction for its adjudication. The Petitioner conceded that the prayer should have been for a direction to the CBDT to decide the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and reiterated this submission. The Petitioner referred to Annexure P11, which detailed the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the ITR for AY 2014-15 and alternatively, compounding of offences under Sections 276CC, 278B, and 278E, referencing both old and new guidelines for compounding. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the Respondent (Income Tax Office) in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 276CC,Section 278B,Section 278E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10052/2025 & CM APPL. 41791/2025 CM APPL. 41792/2025 CM APPL. 41793/2025

M/S BLUE APPLE IMAGE CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr Nitin Gulati, and Mr Pankaj Kapoor, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICE .....Respondent Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, SSC, Ms Monica Benjamin and Ms Easha Kadian, JSCs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R %

22.07.2025

1.

This petition is filed with the following prayer: “a. Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to adjudicate upon the compounding application dated 21.10.2024 filed by the Petitioner in compliance of the order dated 05.12.2023. b. Pass such further or other orders as may be necessary to direct the Respondent to dispose of the compounding application within a fixed time frame, preferably within 30 days.”

2.

Suffice it to say, this is second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner herein. In the earlier round of litigation, bearing W.P.(C) No.15151/2023, which was disposed of on 05.12.2023, the Court has stated as under:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2025 at 13:24:07

“1. After some arguments, learned counsel for petitioner wishes to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file an application with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act. 2. With the aforesaid liberty, the present writ petition stands disposed of. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.”

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner do concede that the prayer as made in the petition should have been for a direction to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to decide the application filed under Section 119(2)

(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He reiterates his submission that this petition be treated for a direction to the CBDT to take a decision on the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the annexure P11 in the paperbook, more specifically, page no.276 of the writ petition wherein the prayer made is to the following effect: “....In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is kindly requested with your good office to condone the delay in filing of ITR by the company after the prescribed time limit and allow the processing of the return for assessment and issue of refund for the Assessment year 2014-15 or in alternative compound the offence under section 276 CC, 278 B and 278 E of the IT Act 1961 in terms of the old guidelines issued on 16.09.2022 vide notification no. F.No.285/08/2014-IT (Inv.V)/ 196 and the new Guidelines 17.10.2024 issued by the Government of India for compounding of offences under the I.T Act, on the grounds as stated in the above application.”

5.

The aforesaid being the position, we direct the application under This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2025 at 13:24:07

Section 119(2) (b) shall be decided by the CBDT within the period of eight weeks from today. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending applications are also disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

SAURABH BANERJEE, J JULY 22, 2025 M

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2025 at 13:24:07

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 →