Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A. S. SUPEHIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI, JJ
RAJGREEN INFRALINK LLP – Appellant
Versus
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 SURAT – Respondent
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani for the respondent waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions for setting aside the order dated 27.10.2023 rejecting the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the Assessment Year- 2021-22 under the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
3. The petitioner is a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) engaged in the real estate development business in Surat. Due date of filing the Return of Income for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 under section 139(1) of the Act was 31.10.2021. Due to COVID-19 outbreak the same was extended to 15.03.2022 vide Notifications dated 20.05.2021, 09.09.2021 and 11.01.2022. The petitioner filed the return of income of AY 2021-22 on 28.03.2022 offering income at Rs.4,56,1
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 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 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 must be considered when evaluating applications for delay condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
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.
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.
The court established that genuine hardship under Section 119(2)(b) should be assessed liberally, allowing for condonation of delay in exceptional circumstances.
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
Listen Article