LATE KANTA DEVI JAIN vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

CW/18311/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02101837202406 January 2025Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,UMA SHANKER VYAS2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that an application seeking condonation of delay in filing income tax returns, once filed, must be decided one way or the other expeditiously and should not be kept pending for an extended period. The Court observed that the petitioner's application for condonation of delay for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17 had been pending without a decision. The Court directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur 2, to decide the pending application within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction. No specific issue regarding the merits of the condonation application itself was decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Late Kanta Devi Jain (through her legal heir Shri Sunil Mittal), filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition concerned the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. The petitioner had filed an application seeking condonation of delay in submitting income tax returns for these years on 01.08.2018. This application remained pending without a decision. A notice dated 13.03.2023 was issued, but it pertained only to Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner clarified that the condonation request covered all years from 2012-13 to 2016-17. The High Court noted that the application for condonation of delay should have been decided expeditiously.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have decided the application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17 expeditiously, as required by law? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their application for condonation of delay, filed on 01.08.2018, had been pending for an inordinate period without any decision. They emphasized that the delay condonation request covered multiple assessment years (2012-13 to 2016-17), not just the single year mentioned in a subsequent notice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the delay in deciding the application. However, the appearance of counsel for the respondents indicates their participation in the proceedings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:579-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18311/2024 Late Kanta Devi Jain, Through her Legal Heir Shri Sunil Mittal, Resident Of E-76 101-102, Shri Niketan Apartment, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block Secretariat Building Delhi Through Its Chairman. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur 2, Jaipur New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Satwika Jha & Ms. Apeksha Bapna on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 06/01/2025 1. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, learned counsel, on advance copy, enters appearance on behalf of respondents. 2. Heard. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this petition need not be kept pending but can be disposed of. 4. It appears that a prayer seeking condonation of delay in submission of returns for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016- 17 filed on 01.08.2018 is pending consideration without any decision thereon.

[2025:RJ-JP:579-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-18311/2024] 5. Our attention was drawn to a notice dated 13.03.2023. However, that notice is only with respect to the Assessment Year 2016-17. Instant reply to the same by the petitioner shows that the petitioner has reiterated that it has applied seeking condonation of delay for filing ITRs for the Assessment Year 2012- 13 to 2016-17 and not only for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 6. Be that as it may, we are of the view that once an application has been filed seeking condonation, the same was required to be decided one way or the other expeditiously and ought not to have been kept pending for such a long period. 7. We direct respondent No.2-Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur 2 to decide the application within a period of eight weeks. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/33

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →