MITHLESH KUMAR TRIPATHI vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/11440/2025HC DelhiDLHC01052261202515 September 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition by noting the submissions of both parties. The respondents, through their counsel, informed the court that the petitioner's waiver application dated March 17, 2017, was not traceable. They advised the petitioner to file a fresh application under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the Assessing Officer, with a copy to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-2 and the CBDT. The court directed that upon receipt of this fresh application within one week from the date of the order, the concerned authority shall decide it in accordance with law within a maximum period of eight weeks. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original application or the alleged delay, as the matter was resolved by directing the filing of a fresh application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mithlesh Kumar Tripathi, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a mandamus directing the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) to pass a reasoned order on his waiver application dated March 17, 2017, filed under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with a CBDT Circular. Alternatively, the petitioner sought a copy of the order if already passed. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, stated that the application was not traceable. They advised the petitioner to file a fresh application to the Assessing Officer (AO), with copies to the CCIT and CBDT, which would then be considered in accordance with law. The petitioner agreed to file a fresh application within one week.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents have failed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner's waiver application dated March 17, 2017, filed under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby violating principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular F. No. 400/129/2002-IT(B) dated 26.06.2006). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the failure to dispose of the waiver application or communicate a decision violates natural justice and constitutional obligations. Revenue's Contention: The respondents stated that the application dated March 17, 2017, was not traceable in their records and advised the petitioner to file a fresh application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11440/2025 MITHLESH KUMAR TRIPATHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv with Mr. Rohit Tiwari and Mr. Shivani. Advs. versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC, Mr. V.K. Saksena, Ms. Hemlata Rawa, JSCs, Mr. Saurabh, Mr. Abhay Singh and Mr. Dipak Raj Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

15.09.2025 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 1 to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner’s waiver application dated 17.03.2017 filed under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with CBDT Circular F. No. 400/129/2002-IT(B) dated 26.06.2006, within a time-bound period; (b) In the alternative, and without prejudice, direct Respondent No. 1 to furnish a copy of the order, if already passed on the petitioner’s waiver application dated 17.03.2017, forthwith; (c) Declare that the failure to dispose of the waiver application or to communicate a decision thereon violates the principles of natural justice, and is contrary to the obligations cast upon a quasi-judicial authority under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;” 2. On 06.08.2025, we have recorded the submissions of Mr. Ojha, 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 22/09/2025 at 12:33:21

learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for respondents to enable him to take instructions. 3. Today, Ms. Hemlata Rawat, appears for the respondents and states, the application dated 17.03.2017 is not traceable in the records of respondents. She states on instructions received from the Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Circle 25(1) that appropriate shall be a fresh application be filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to the AO, by forwarding a copy to CCIT-2 and to CBDT as well. The same shall be considered in accordance with law, under the provisions of the Act and instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 4. Mr. Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states on instructions that such an application shall be filed within one week from today, to enable the respondents decide the same. 5. Noting the above, it is made clear that on receipt of the application by the petitioner within one week from today, the authority concerned shall decide the same in accordance with law within eight weeks as an outer limit. 6. The petition is disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 ss 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 22/09/2025 at 12:33:21

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →