RAJIV MALHOTRA vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT) & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4150/2025HC DelhiDLHC01017583202502 April 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the concerned respondent (CBDT) to consider the petitioner's application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of the order. The Court clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for condonation of delay or the refund amount. The operative direction is solely to ensure the timely disposal of the pending application. No specific issue was decided on merits, and the principle that can be cited is the High Court's power to direct authorities to dispose of pending applications within a stipulated timeframe.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajiv Malhotra, a resident of the USA, sought a direction from the Delhi High Court to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to decide his application dated January 18, 2024. This application was filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of delay in filing his income tax return for Assessment Year 2022-23. The petitioner claims he is entitled to a refund of ₹46,74,080/-. He attributes the delay in filing to disputes with his brother, who was responsible for filing the returns. The petitioner stated that his application had not yet been disposed of by the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the respondent (CBDT) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for AY 2022-23? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that he was entitled to a refund of ₹46,74,080/- for AY 2022-23 but had failed to file his return due to disputes with his brother, who was handling the filing. He contended that his application for condonation of delay had not been processed by the respondent. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. The appearance of the Standing Counsel and Advocates for the Union of India suggests they were present, but their arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4150/2025 & CM APPL. 19296/2025 RAJIV MALHOTRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr Sankalp Malik and Mr Sanjay Malik, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC Mr. Shivendra Singh and Yojit Pareek, Jr SCs and Namit Gupta, Advocate. Mr Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 02.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the directions be issued to respondent no.1 to allow the petitioner’s application dated 18.01.2024 filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] seeking condonation of delay in filing the income tax returns in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2022-23. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that he was entitled to claim refund of ₹46,74,080/- but has not filed the returns in respect of AY 2022-23. It is the petitioner’s case that he is a resident of United States of America and relying on his brother to file the returns. But, on account of certain disputes that had arisen, his brother had not filed the returns. The petitioner states that his application has not been disposed of. 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 01/07/2025 at 23:51:16

3.

In view of the above, we consider it apposite to direct the concerned respondent to consider the petitioner’s application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of six weeks from date. We clarify that all the rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. 4. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 02, 2025 M Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 01/07/2025 at 23:51:16

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 →