Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar dismissed a writ petition seeking condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and declined to interfere with the tax authority’s rejection of the request. The petitioner, a Canadian citizen and non-resident, wanted permission to file a belated Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2020–21 after transactions in India, citing lack of awareness of Indian tax requirements and constraints linked to the COVID-19 period. The Court accepted that such explanations did not establish “genuine hardship” for condoning the delay, noting that ignorance of law is not an excuse.

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner through a Power of Attorney challenging an order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)–01, New Delhi. By the impugned order, the tax authority rejected the petitioner’s application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2020–21 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Also Read: High Courts Cannot Grant ‘No Arrest’ Protection Or Fix Investigation Deadlines While Declining To Quash FIR: Supreme Court

The petitioner stated that he was a Canadian citizen and a non-resident for the relevant assessment year. He asserted that prior to AY 2020–21, he had not earned taxable income in India. During the relevant year, he sold an immovable property for a consideration of ₹2,00,16,550, on which tax was deducted at source by the purchaser and deposited with the Government. He also earned interest income from a bank.

The petitioner contended that due to his residence abroad, lack of knowledge of Indian tax laws, medical issues, and travel restrictions during COVID-19, he failed to file the return within the prescribed time. He relied on the concept of “genuine hardship” and sought condonation of delay and waiver of interest. The tax authority rejected the application, leading to the present writ petition.

The Court noted that the Income Tax Return in question pertained to the Assessment Year 2020–21 and that the application for condonation of delay was filed only in June 2025. The Bench recorded that the reasons advanced by the petitioner were duly considered by the tax authority.

The Court observed that “the respondents have rejected the application with reasons” and proceeded to examine whether those reasons warranted interference. It noted that the petitioner’s plea of lack of awareness of tax laws was not acceptable in law, observing that “ignorance of law is not an excuse.”

Referring to the impugned order, the Court recorded that the authority had found the explanation of unawareness of TDS deduction to be “general in nature and holds no ground.” The Court also noted the authority’s finding that the medical surgeries relied upon by the petitioner had occurred in 2008 and 2011, “more than a decade ago,” and therefore did not explain the delay for the relevant assessment year.

The Bench further took note of the finding that capital gains are taxable “in the year of transfer of property and not in the year of actual receipt of the money,” and that the petitioner was statutorily required to file the return for the year in which the transfer took place.

On the plea of COVID-related travel restrictions, the Court recorded that the authority had observed that “the assessee could have easily filed ITR online on Income Tax Portal from anywhere.”

The Court referred to earlier precedents and reiterated that statutory timelines must be respected, recording that “extension of time cannot be claimed as a vested right on mere asking.” It also noted the settled principle that “every day of delay needs to be explained with cogent evidences.”

The Bench concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any genuine hardship or extraordinary circumstance warranting exercise of power under Section 119(2)(b).

Also Read: Patent Office Must Read Complete Specification; Delhi High Court Revives Patent Application For Mechanical Folding Device

The Court directed: “we concur with the view taken by the officer in the impugned order and find no reason to interfere with the same. Being bereft of any merits, the petition is dismissed. The pending application is also dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Ms. Nikita Thapar, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Debesh Panda, Senior Standing Counsel; Ms. Zehra Khan, Junior Standing Counsel; Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Junior Standing Counsel; Ms. Nivedita, Advocate; Ms. A. Shankar, Advocate; Ms. Ravicha Sharma, Advocate

Case Title: Manjit Singh Dhaliwal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)–01, New Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:11799-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 19589/2025
Bench: Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Justice Vinod Kumar