The court held that genuine hardship must be assessed for delay applications under Section 119(2)(b), not merely denied based on failure to demonstrate hardship.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is a partnership firm and is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act')

2. The issue involved in this Writ Petition pertains to the rejection of the delay condonation application for filing ITR dated 17.01.2024 submitted by the petitioner under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act, as per the order passed by the 2^nd respondent for the assessment year 2023-2024. The said application was dismissed vide Ext.P12 order by the 2^nd respondent, solely on the reason that, the condonation of delay in filing the return of income can only be considered in cases where, the assessee demonstrates genuine hardship that would arise if the refund is not granted and in this case assessee failed to demonstrate that. Thus, the reasons that were highlighted in the application for not filing the return were not at all considered by the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P12.

3. I have heard Smt. G.Mini, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondents in response to the averments contained in the Writ Petition and opposing the reliefs sought. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the scope of power available to the 2^nd respondent, while considering an application under Section 119 (2) (b) is to consider whether sufficient reasons are cited for not filing the returns in time and a finding on the merits of the returns is not a matter to be considered. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1420/2023 dated 26.09.2023 ( Daisy v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ) wherein, this question was considered and it was categorically observed that, as far as the merits of the returns are concerned, the same is to be considered by the assessing authority and the Principal Commissioner while exercising powers under (2)(b) was to merely consider the reasons for condonation of delay in preferring the refund claimed or submitting the returns. The said decision has been followed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)No.26159/2024 dated 14.10.2024 ( Mohan Poovampally Gopal v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ) and in W.P.(C) No.37648/2023 dated 24.11.2023 ( M/s. Best Ready Mix Concrete v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ).

5. After considering all the relevant materials and the statutory stipulations contained under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act as well as Ext.P11 Circular, I find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from Ext.P12 order that, the application was rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to demonstrate genuine hardship if the refund is not granted. However, the said reason is not sustainable in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to above. The fact that, the petitioner was denied the refund of the amount, itself is a genuine hardship, which a responsible authority cannot ignore, as in such case, the right of the petitioner over his property is being denied. Therefore, the authority concerned ought to have considered the grounds highlighted by the petitioner for condoning the delay. However, in Ext.P12 order, there is no consideration of the reasons furnished by the petitioner for not filing the returns in time. Therefore, an interference is necessary.

In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P12, directing the 2^nd respondent to reconsider th