MANOJ ATREE THROUGH LRS SUMAN ATREE & ORS. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6478/2025HC DelhiDLHC01030075202515 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 delay in filing the present petition was almost five years from the date of the impugned order. Furthermore, the refund sought pertained to tax paid in AYs 2007-08 to 2010-11, which was more than fourteen years prior to the filing of the petition. The court found it not apposite to entertain the petition given these significant delays. The court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the taxability of interest or the Revenue's objections regarding limitation, as the decision was based solely on the procedural delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manoj Atree (through LRs), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). This order rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a revised return. The petitioner had received interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for land acquired for public purposes, and had paid income tax on this interest for Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08 to 2010-11. He sought a refund of this tax. The petitioner 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. The present petition was filed almost five years after the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in view of the inordinate delay of almost five years from the date of the impugned order and the fact that the refund sought pertains to tax paid in AYs 2007-08 to 2010-11, which is over fourteen years old. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that no tax is payable on interest received on compensation for compulsory acquisition of land. The petitioner had filed representations and applications for refund and relaxation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contested the claim that no tax is payable on the interest. The Revenue also argued that the applications filed by the petitioner and similarly placed persons were barred by limitation as per the Circular dated 09.06.2015. The Revenue passed the impugned order rejecting the condonation of delay application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 28

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6478/2025 MANOJ ATREE THROUGH LRS SUMAN ATREE & ORS. .....Petitioners 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. 29530/2025 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 6478/2025 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 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

interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Assessment Years [AYs] 2007-08 to 2010-11. On 22.04.2016, the petitioner filed a representation claiming refund of the tax payable on interest received on compensation for acquisition of land. Thereafter, on 22.02.2018, 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 for 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; 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

however, it is noted that the petitioner had not taken any steps to challenge 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, 2025/tr 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 →