UMESH ATREE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6477/2025HC DelhiDLHC01030071202515 May 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of inordinate delay. The court noted that the impugned order was passed pursuant to a previous court direction, but the petitioner had not challenged it promptly, leading to a delay of almost five years from the date of the impugned order. Furthermore, the court considered that the case involved seeking a refund of tax paid in AYs 2007-08 to 2010-11, which was more than fourteen years prior to the present petition. The court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the taxability of interest on compensation or the applicability of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the procedural delay. No specific issue was left undecided, as the petition was dismissed on preliminary grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Umesh Atree, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.09.2020 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) rejecting his application for condonation of delay to file a revised return. The petitioner's land was acquired for public purpose, and he had paid income tax on the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08 to 2010-11. He sought a refund of this tax. He filed applications for relaxation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for refund amounts. A previous writ petition (WP(C) 4489/2020) was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to decide these applications within eight weeks. The impugned order was passed pursuant to this direction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner's application for condonation of delay to file a revised return, seeking refund of tax paid on interest received on compensation for compulsory acquisition of land, was maintainable despite the delay. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner contended that no tax is payable on the interest received on compensation for compulsory acquisition of land. He had filed applications for relaxation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contested the maintainability of the application on the grounds that it was barred by limitation as per Circular dated 09.06.2015. The Revenue also contested the claim that no tax is payable on the interest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 28

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6477/2025 UMESH ATREE .....Petitioner Through: Mr Praveen Chauhan with Mr Sarthak, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10 .....Respondent Through: Mr Apoorv Aggarwal, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 15.05.2025 C.M. APPL. 29528/2025 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 6477/2025 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [PCIT] whereby the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay to file a revised return is rejected. The petitioner states that the land owned by him in Village Chandwali, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana was acquired for public purpose. The petitioner had paid income tax on the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the 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 19:58:28

Assessment Years [AYs] 2007-08 to 2010-11. On 23.01.2016, the petitioner filed a representation claiming refund of the tax payable on interest received on compensation for acquisition of land. Thereafter, on 22.04.2016, the petitioner filed separate applications for each Assessment year requesting for relaxation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act [Act] for refund amount. The petitioner periodically continued to make representations. The petitioner was afforded a hearing by the PCIT on 02.09.2019. However, on the petitioner’s request, application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act was not decided. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court being WP(C) 4489/2020 which was disposed of. The said petition was listed before the coordinate bench of this court along with other connected petitions on 23.07.2020. Whereas it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no tax is payable on the interest received on compensation for compulsory acquisition of land. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue contested the same. The Revenue also contested the said petition on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner and others similarly placed persons were barred by limitation in terms of the Circular dated 09.06.2015. This court did not address any of the said objections and confined the writ petition to the grievance that the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act could not be disposed of. Accordingly, this court directed the respondent to decide the applications filed by the petitioner as well as the persons who are petitioners in other connected matters within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law. 5. The impugned order was passed pursuant to the said directions; however, it is noted that the petitioner had not taken any steps to challenge 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 19:58:28

the said order to file the present petition. 6. We do not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition in view of the inordinate delay which is almost five years from the date on which the impugned order was passed. We are also considering that the petitioner’s case is for seeking refund of the tax that was paid in the AYs 2007-08 to 2010-11 which is more than fourteen years from date. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 15, 2025tr 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 19:58:28

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 →