A Writ Petition should be filed within a reasonable period, High Court dismissed Petition challenging order passed u/s 119(2)(b)
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble High Court while dismissing Writ Petition against order passed u/s 119(2)(b) by the CIT rejecting application for delay in filing return of income observed that though there is no limitation for filing a Writ Petition, the litigant should approach the Court within a reasonable period of time.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5064 (2026) (03) abcaus.in HC
In the instant case, the Petition had filed a Writ Petition challenging order passed under section 119(2(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax whereby application seeking condonation of delay in filing return of income was rejected.
The return filed by the Petitioner was declared defective on the ground that total gross receipts allegedly exceeded 1 crore and audit report required in terms of Section 44(A)(B) of the Act, was not attached with the return.
As stated by the Petitioner, reply was filed submitting ITR-6 Form highlighting that sale/gross receipts of business was less than Rs. one crore and additional sum was income from other sources being sale of fixed assets and that audit under Section 44(A)(B) was not attracted as business tum over is below statutory limit of one crore. However, the return was held to be defective under section 139(9) of the Act treating the return as invalid.
The Petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay for filing the return explaining bona-fide reasons for delay. However, the PCIT passed the impugned order denying the condonation.
Before the Hon’ble High Court, the Petitioner argued that test of genuine hardship under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act requires liberal interpretation and that petitioner squarely satisfied all conditions prescribed under CBDT Circular No. 9/2015.
It was submitted that denial of petitioner’s application accorded an illegal and arbitrary finality to advance tax already deducted and standing in the name of petitioner leading to violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India besides retention of tax without any authority of law in complete violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon ‘ble Supreme Court.
The Revenue opposed the writ petition and submitted that writ petition itself was hit by delay and laches apart from there being no ground to interfere on the merits thereof as well.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the Petitioner had filed the Petition after a delay of two years and nine months from the date of impugned order. Further, in the Writ Petition there was not even a whisper leave alone a reasonable explanation for this delay.
The Petitioner argued that there is no limitation for filing of a writ petition and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court to submit that delay may be considered to be unreasonable if it was beyond the period of three years in-as-much as period of limitation prescribed for recovery of money paid by mistake under the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that undoubtedly, there is no limitation for filing a writ petition, however, it is a settled position and has been held invarious decisions by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this High Court that a litigant should approach the Court within a reasonable period of time. What is a reasonable period would necessarily depend upon nature of statutes, rights and liabilities.
The Hon’ble High Court noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if no period of limitation is prescribed a statutory authority shall also exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable time.
The Hon’ble High Court further noted that Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there cannot be a straitjacket formula to arrive at a conclusion that there is delay and laches in a particular matter. Period or length of delay by itself may not be indicative of delay and laches
The Hon’ble High Court also observed another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that for filing a writ petition there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and laches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court.
The Hon’ble High Court held that the this writ petition indeed suffered from delay and laches and does not warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Writ Petition to be filed within reasonable period, challenge to order u/s 119(2)(b) dismissed
- Excel Form 10E-Salary Arrears Relief calculator for AY 2026-27 for claiming rebate u/s 89(1)
- Procedure for handling returning export cargo from Strait of Hormuz, Waiver of additional fee
- Addition u/s 68 for cash deposit entries in bank statement upheld though assessee did not maintain books
- Central Bank of India Concurrent audit online empanelment FY 2026-27. Last Date 15.03.2026
(b) dismissed){kind=link}