* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 04.11.2025 Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2025 Judgment uploaded on: As per Digital Signature~

+ W.P.(C) 405/2024 M/S SIREZ LIMITED .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Medhurendra Sharma and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Ms. Bakshi Vinita, SPC for UOI.

Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC, Ms. Sakshi Sehawal, Mr. Akshat Singh, JSCs and Mr. Gaoraang Ranjan and Ms. Harshita Kotru, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

V. KAMESWAR RAO , J.

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

“i) Set aside the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the respondent no.1.

ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus/order/direction whereby directing the respondents to reimburse/release TDS Amount (Rs.19,73,540).

iii) Cost of this petition.”

2. The facts as borne out from the petition are that the petitioner company was incorporated on 15.06.2005 and is engaged in the work of digital marketing, content marketing, digital media planning, social media marketing, mobile app development (android and iOS), website development & inbound marketing. The petitioner did not file its Return of Income (ITR) for the Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19, even after the extended period upto 31.10.2018. The petitioner filed its ITR on 20.09.2021 after a delay of 30 months. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application vide letter dated 20.09.2021 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for condonation of delay in filing the ITR and claim of carry forward of business loss to the tune of Rs.1,06,60,750/-, stating that due to an inter se dispute amongst the directors, the return could not be filed.

3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner company also sought refund amounting to Rs.19,73,540/- on account of the TDS deducted during the previous year. The respondent no.1 sent a letter inter alia asking the petitioner to furnish more documents, and thereafter, the respondent no.1 sought certain information and documents from the petitioner company. On 17.09.2022, the petitioner company via email furnished the documents as required by the respondent no. 1 viz. the complete draft returns of income;

Computation of Income and Tax Audit reports.

4. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the inception of the petitioner company, the petitioner has regularly filed its ITR without any delay, however, due to a dispute between the directors of the petitioner company, coupled with financial crunch, it could not file its ITR for the AY 2018-19 within the prescribed time limitation which was extended upto 31.10.2018. He further stated that by the time the dispute could be resolved, the delay of 30 months had already occurred. He stated that as a result of delay, the annual filing with the Registrar of Companies was also delayed, for which the petitioner company has paid the late fee as well.

5. It is his submission that preceding to AY 2018-19, the petitioner company had suffered loss under the head of „Profit‟ from business and Profession of Rs.1,06,60,750/- which the petitioner company intended to carry forward to the subsequent previous years. He stated that this amount of loss is substantial and is to be carried forward, without which the petitioner company will not be able to avail the benefit of Section 72 of the Act for the future AYs. Additionally, the company would have to incur huge tax liability. Consequently, the benefit of TDS deductions to the tune of 19,73,540/- for the relevant previous year i.e. 2017-18 will also go unclaimed if the delay in filing the return is not condoned, and this will again multiply the loss of the petitioner company as a tax refund and would further add to the distress of the petitioner company.

6. He submitted that on 02.09.2022, pursuant to its applicati