SIDDHARTHA KOTHARI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3 & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/7103/2025HC DelhiDLHC01032914202523 May 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order dated 08.11.2024. The Court agreed with the Revenue's submission that the matter should be remanded to the concerned authority for a fresh consideration. The reasoning was that the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to be heard, irrespective of the technical issues raised regarding the accessibility of the hearing notice. The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the delay condonation request itself. The operative direction was to remand the matter to the concerned authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity to present his case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Siddhartha Kothari, a non-resident, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.11.2024 passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order rejected his request for condoning the delay in filing his Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2023-24. The petitioner contended he mistakenly believed he could file belatedly until 31.03.2024, only learning in January 2024 that the deadline was 31.12.2023. He also claimed he was unable to attend a hearing opportunity due to server issues preventing him from downloading the notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner's request for condoning the delay in filing the return for AY 2023-24, under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was rightly rejected. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that his delay was due to a bona fide misunderstanding of the filing deadlines for belated returns and that he was prevented from participating in a hearing due to technical server issues that made the notice inaccessible. He relied on the principle of natural justice, emphasizing the denial of an opportunity to be heard. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel, suggested that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded for a fresh decision, without delving into the specifics of whether the petitioner could access the notice or not. This approach aimed to ensure the petitioner was given a proper opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7103/2025 CM APPL. 32087/2025

SIDDHARTHA KOTHARI

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kumar, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Aanjul Dalela, Advocates.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3 & ANR.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC, Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSC, Ms. Priya Sarkar, Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

23.05.2025 CM APPL. 32088/2025(Exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 7103/2025 CM APPL. 32087/2025 3. Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice. 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 08.11.2024, passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], whereby the petitioner’s request for condoning the delay in filing the return for the Assessment Year [AY] 2023-24 was rejected. It is the petitioner’s case that he is a non-resident and was under the erroneous assumption that the return for AY 2023-2024 could be belatedly filed up to 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 20:06:53

31.03.2024. Accordingly, he contacted a Chartered Accountant in January, 2024 but was informed that even the belated return of income could not be filed beyond 31.12.2023. In this context, the petitioner made a request for condoning the delay in filing his return. 5. It is stated that the concerned officer had granted the petitioner an opportunity to be heard; however, the said notice was neither communicated nor could it be downloaded on account of server issues. The petitioner has furnished a screenshot of the portal which indicates that “Document is not able to download due to Server Issue.” Thus, the petitioner could not access the said notice. 6. Mr. Sunil Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, submits that without going into the question of whether the document could be accessed or not, the impugned order may be set aside and the concerned authority may be permitted to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The course suggested by Mr. Agarwal commends itself to this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned authority to consider afresh. 7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 8. All pending applications stand disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 23, 2025 KG

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 20:06:53

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 →