Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Navinbhai Bhagubhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and procedural context of hearings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petition facts and tax return filing circumstances. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding denial of natural justice. (Para 6) |
| 4. judicial observations on statutory provisions. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's decision and direction for re-evaluation. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Tushar Hemani for learned advocate Mr. Naitik Shah for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri for the respondent No.1 and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani for the respondent No.2.
3. Considering the controversy involved which is in narrow compass, the matters are heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates of the respective parties. As all the matters have common issue, SCA No. 10486 of 2025 is being considered as lead matter for recording the facts.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an individual and had no taxable business income till the year 2022-23. Therefore, he was not required to file Income Tax Return till A.Y. 2022-23, as per the provision of Section 139(2) of the Act.
5.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner started working at
The court held that genuine hardship must be considered when evaluating applications for delay condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The court ruled that 'genuine hardship' should be construed liberally in tax law for condonation of delays, promoting substantial justice, especially when no liability exists.
The court held that 'genuine hardship' in income tax condonation applications should be construed liberally to prevent injustice caused by technicalities, especially in cases involving medical emerge....
The court emphasized that ignorance of law is not an excuse for delay in filing tax returns, but recognized the genuine circumstances of a non-resident's inability to meet deadlines.
Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act should receive a liberal construction, and genuine hardship is the primary consideration for condonation of delay in filing returns of income.
The court emphasized that genuine hardship due to age and medical conditions should be considered liberally when deciding on condoning delays in filing income tax returns.
The court established that genuine hardship under Section 119(2)(b) should be assessed liberally, allowing for condonation of delay in exceptional circumstances.
The court held that genuine hardship due to pandemic restrictions justified the condonation of delay in filing the return of income under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
A Non-Resident Indian can be excused from filing delays under specific provisions when genuine hardship due to exceptional circumstances like a pandemic is shown.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
