MINDWORX ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-4 & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1717/2026HC DelhiDLHC01004160202606 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's application for condonation of delay could not be sustained. The Court noted that an amount of Rs. 3,10,608/- was deducted as TDS and remained unclaimed. The Court reasoned that no assessee would willingly let their TDS credit go to waste without compelling reasons. It was observed that the petitioner was handicapped due to the non-cooperation or negligence of their Chartered Accountant. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 was set aside. The Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application afresh, allowing the petitioner to file additional documents and evidence within thirty days. The Authority was also instructed to consider the representation and additional documents placed in the writ petition, and pass an order in accordance with law, without prejudice to the earlier rejection.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mindworx Advisory Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Delhi-4. This order rejected the petitioner's application filed on 18.07.2025 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of delay in filing a revised return for Assessment Year 2023-24. The petitioner argued that the PCIT wrongly rejected the application despite acknowledging that the Chartered Accountant's (CA) email ID was used for filing the original return, the CA could not be reached, and the CA resigned on 24.09.2024. The Revenue contended that the petitioner failed to produce all relevant materials, justifying the rejection.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the PCIT was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a revised return for AY 2023-24 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act of 1961, considering the circumstances of the Chartered Accountant's non-cooperation or negligence. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the PCIT erred in rejecting the application. The petitioner highlighted that the CA's email was used for filing the original return, the CA became unreachable, and subsequently resigned. These facts, acknowledged by the PCIT, should have led to condonation. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the petitioner failed to place all relevant evidence before the PCIT. Consequently, the PCIT was justified in rejecting the application because the available material did not constitute a valid reason for condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1717/2026 & CM APPL. 8407/2026 MINDWORX ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Majumder, Adv. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-4 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC, and Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms. Muskaan Goel, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Arya and Ms. Pushpag Shah, Advs. Mr. Ranjeet Pandey, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

06.02.2026 1. Instant writ petition questions the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 12.11.2025, passed by the Principal Commissioner Income Tax (PCIT), Delhi-4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’) whereby the petitioner’s application dated 18.07.2025 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) seeking condonation of delay in filing revised return for Assessment Year 2023-24 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee submitted that despite noticing the fact that email ID of the assessee’s the then Chartered 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 09/02/2026 at 12:56:59

Accountant (CA) was used for filing the Income Tax Return (ITR) so also the fact that he could not be reached out and that he resigned on 24.09.2024, the authority and wrongly rejected the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing the revised ITR. 3. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submitted that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have placed the relevant evidence and since he had failed to produce all relevant materials, the Authority was justified in rejecting the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act of 1961. Because, the material that was made available with him did not constitute a valid reason. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, we are of the view that the fact that amount of Rs.3,10,608/- was deducted from his income and credit of TDS of the said amount is still lying unclaimed, the rejection may be for whatever reason, cannot be sustained. No assessee would let his credit lying as TDS go waste unless there are compelling reasons. It is a case where the petitioner was handicapped because of the non-cooperation or negligence of his Chartered Accountant. 5. We therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 and direct the authority to consider the petitioner’s application afresh. 6. Petitioner shall be free to file additional documents and evidence in support of his claim within a period of thirty days from today. 7. While deciding the petitioner’s application, the Authority shall also consider the representation and the additional documents, which the petitioner would be placing as has been placed in the present writ petition. He shall pass an order in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by 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 09/02/2026 at 12:56:59

the fact that on earlier occasion, petitioner’s application has been rejected by the Authority. 8. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed. 9. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 10. In case the Authority feels that the petitioner should be given a personal hearing, the same shall be given. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J FEBRUARY 6, 2026/cd 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 09/02/2026 at 12:56:59

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 →