ANIL KUMAR MITTAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX), DELHI (2) & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5184/2025HC DelhiDLHC01022703202523 April 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax was neither perverse nor unreasonable, and therefore, did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court found that the petitioner's situation did not constitute a case of genuine hardship preventing him from filing his returns. Instead, the Court characterized the delay as a result of the petitioner's negligence in fulfilling his statutory obligations. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anil Kumar Mittal, an NRI residing in Egypt for over twenty years, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Delhi (2) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing his income tax returns for Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 and 2023-24. The petitioner claimed to have earned interest on fixed deposits and insurance policy maturity proceeds, with tax deducted at source exceeding the tax liability. He sought to avail benefit of individual slab rates and requested relaxation of statutory timelines due to the delay. The Commissioner rejected the application, deeming it not a case of genuine hardship.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Delhi (2) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing returns for AY 2017-18 to 2021-22 and 2023-24, is perverse or unreasonable warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he was under the belief he did not need to file returns in India and sought condonation of delay to avail slab rate benefits on income where TDS exceeded tax payable. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Commissioner's order, contended that the delay was not due to genuine hardship but due to the petitioner's negligence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5184/2025 & CM Nos.23589/2025 & 23590/2025 ANIL KUMAR MITTAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Drona Negi & Mr. Devvrat Tiwari, Advs. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX), DELHI (2) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Ms. Naincy Jain, Ms. Madhavi Shukla & Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 23.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 06.09.2024 [impugned order] passed by respondent no.1 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] rejecting the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing his return of income in respect of Assessment Years [AY] 2017-18 to 2021-22 and 2023-24. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that he is a Non Resident Indian [NRI] and has been residing in Egypt for more than twenty years. The petitioner states that he was under the belief that he did not require to file his return of income in India. The petitioner states that during the previous years, relevant to the assessment years as set out above, the petitioner had earned interest on fixed deposits and on the maturity proceeds from the Insurance Policy. According to the petitioner, the tax deducted at source on the said income exceeds the amount of tax payable on the said income and therefore the petitioner now seeks relaxation of the statutory timelines for filing his return, at this belated stage. 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 21:08:29

3.

The petitioner also seeks to avail the benefit of the slab rates as applicable to an individual. Since there is inordinate delay in filing the returns, the petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the return. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT] rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that it was not a case of genuine hardship. 5. We are unable to accept that the impugned order is perverse or unreasonable warranting any interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is not a case where the petitioner could not file his returns of income on account of any genuine hardship. It is a case where the petitioner has been negligent in doing so. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications are also dismissed. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 23, 2025 ‘gsr’ 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 21:08:29

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 →