IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2148 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI ==================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==================================================

RAR PROPERTIES Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ==================================================

Appearance:

MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS MAITHILI D MEHTA(3206) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 23/03/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms.

Maithili Mehta waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the respondent – Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3 (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent”) under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) whereby the application to condone the delay occurred in filing the return of income by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2023-24 is rejected on the ground that there is no genuine hardship demonstrated by the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under :

3.1. The petitioner is a Firm inter alia engaged in the business of development of Special Economic Zone. It is the case of the petitioner that during the year under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 2023-24, the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act was 31.07.2023 whereby the books of accounts were required to be audited by an accountant in terms of Section 44AB of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner believed under the advice of the accountant that it would be required to get the books of accounts audited by an accountant in terms of Section 44AB of the Act and therefore, it did not file its return of income by 31.07.2023.

3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that proviso to Section 44AB(a) of the Act entails the petitioner not to get the books of accounts audited by the accountant. Therefore, in wake of such realization, the petitioner filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2023-24 claiming deduction under Section 80-IAB of the Act to the tune of Rs.52,92,631/-. It is the case of the petitioner that return was processed and intimation was issued under Section 143(1) of the Act on 02.02.2024 wherein the claim of exemption under Section 80-IAB of the Act was disallowed and demand of Rs.7,94,090/- was also raised on account of delayed filing of return of income.

3.3. Thereafter in view of the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, the petitioner filed an application under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act on 01.03.2024 to condone the delay in filing the return of income. However, the respondent rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 26.11.2025 on the premise that the petitioner had failed to provide reasonable justification for delay in filing the return of income and there is no genuine hardship. Hence, the impugned order dated

26.11.2025 is impugned in the present writ petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2) (b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the return of income for the Assessment Year 2023-24. The delay occurred due to bona fide mistake and incorrect advice rendered by the accountant of the Firm. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the rejection of the said