$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 13.11.2025 + W.P.(C) 2579/2024 CM APPL. 10721/2024 NEERAJ GUGLANI .....Petitioner Through: Ms Smriti Sahay and Ms Pragati Singh, Advs.

versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia SSC with Mr.

Anant Mann JSC and Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)

1. This petition lays a challenge to an order dated 15.12.2023, whereby the respondents have decided the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), whereby the petitioner has sought condonation of delay in filing the return of income. The reasons for the delay beyond 31.12.2022, which was the last date of extended period of filing the ITR are spelt out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the application, (page 164) which we reproduce as under :

“3. After the MRI scans, the assessee was diagnosed with nerve compression in the spinal cord and secondary canal stenosis, for which the assessee was advised to undergo surgery for Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament by the Doctors.

The copies of the prescription and diagnosis of Doctors are attached herewith.

4. Due to the severity of the ailment suffered by the assessee, the assessee missed the due date for filing the return of Income under Section 139(1).

5. Further, the assessee was under the bona fide impression that the last date of filing the return of income under Section 139(4) Is 31-03-2023. Therefore, the return of Income could not be filed upto the actual due date under section 139(4) I.e. 31-12-2022.

2. Vide the impugned order dated 15.12.2023, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the application by stating in paragraph 4, (page 168) as under :

“4. The facts of the case, submissions of applicant is that, assessee was not able to file the ITR within due date as he was suffering from various medical issues. He further mentioned that he was under the bone fide impression that the last date of filing the return income under Section 139(4) is 31-03-2023. Hence, it is seen that there is ignorance ot the part of the assessee and it law cannot be held as genuine hardship in accordance with CBDT Circular 9/2025 and dated 09.06.2015. Thus, the application of the assessee is not maintainable under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 119 of the Income Tax Act 1961.”

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily by drawing our attention to the report of the MRI examination conducted for the lower back pain suffered by the petitioner, depicts knee jerks and also advice of surgery for cervical OPLL. According to her, the said examination was between the period 31.07.2022 till 31.12.2022 the period during which the petitioner was required to file the returns. She states grounds taken by the petitioner to enable petitioner to file the ITR within the time prescribed i.e. 31.12.2022 is bonafide and there is no reason for the respondents to reject the application filed by the petitioner on 03.02.2023 seeking condonation of delay. She submits, other than this ITR, all ITRs have been filed within time.

4. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC appearing for the respondents justifies the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 by stating that though the last date of filing the ITR was 31.07.2022, the date for filing of the belated ITR being 31.12.2022 and the petitioner having not filed the ITR for a period of more than five months (July & December), the request seeking condonation of delay was rightly rejected.

5. We are unable to convince ourselves with the reasons given by the respondents in rejecting the application. This we say because the petitioner has highlighted the medical reasons, which prevented him from filing the ITR timely. The medical condition do indicate seriousness, which required surgery for cervical OPLL. Presumption can surely be drawn that the med