Delhi High Court Rejects Plea to Condon 9-Month Delay in Filing Revised ITR, Cites Lack of 'Sufficient Cause'

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to overturn the Income Tax Department's refusal to condone a nine-month delay in filing a revised Income Tax Return (ITR). A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar affirmed that a significant delay, without proof of "sufficient cause" or "genuine hardship," does not warrant relief under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The court found the petitioner's explanations, including the need for fresh advice and his non-resident status, unconvincing, particularly given his presumed knowledge of tax laws as the President of a hospital trust.

Case Background

The petitioner, Sanjay Khurana, challenged an order dated August 5, 2025, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). The PCIT had rejected his application to condone a nine-month delay in filing a revised ITR for the Assessment Year 2021-22.

Mr. Khurana had filed his original ITR on February 10, 2022, well within the deadline. However, he later sought to file a revised return on December 22, 2022, to correct an error where a business loss was allegedly misclassified as a speculative loss. The statutory deadline for filing the revised return was March 31, 2022.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Neeraj Yadav, argued that the delay was unintentional. He contended that the necessity to revise the ITR arose after seeking fresh professional advice. The counsel also cited the prevailing COVID-19 situation and the petitioner's status as a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) as contributing factors to the delay.

The Income Tax Department, through the PCIT's order, countered that the petitioner had failed to establish either "sufficient cause" for the delay or "genuine hardship." The department noted that the e-filing portal was globally accessible, which the petitioner had already used to file his original return. It dismissed the claim of hardship as an "afterthought," suggesting the petitioner had ample opportunity to file the revised return before the deadline.

Court's Reasoning and Judgment

The High Court bench was "not impressed" by the petitioner's submissions, deeming the nine-month delay a "very huge period." The court systematically dismantled the petitioner's arguments.

On the plea of being an NRI, the court observed: > "The plea of Mr. Yadav that the fact petitioner being a non-resident Indian has also resulted in delay in filing the revised ITR is not appealing as e-portal was accessible globally and by using it the petitioner himself has filed the original ROI."

The court also took note of the petitioner's professional standing, stating that as the President of a trust running a hospital, he is presumed to have a working knowledge of tax laws. The bench remarked:

> "If that be so the petitioner is presumed to have the knowledge of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) including the knowledge to know the manner in which a right/correct return is filed. Surely it should not take nine months to realize that initial ITR has some mistakes, which requires a revised return."

Final Decision and Implications

Upholding the PCIT's decision, the court concluded that the authorities were correct in dismissing the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The petition was dismissed as being "without any merit."

This judgment reinforces the principle that the power to condone delays is a discretionary one that must be exercised judiciously. Taxpayers cannot rely on generic reasons like ignorance of law or logistical challenges that are easily surmountable with modern technology. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines and the high threshold required to prove "genuine hardship" or "sufficient cause" for seeking condonation.