Court Rejects Revenue's Writ Appeal, Terms 2-Hour Delay as Hyper-Technical and Emphasizes Genuine Hardship Under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act
In a significant judgment dated October 15, 2026, the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices S.G. Pandit and Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha) dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) challenging the condonation of a brief delay in filing an income tax return by M/s. Century Joint Developments Pvt. Ltd. The case involved the original return for the assessment year 2019-2020, which was filed 2 hours, 38 minutes, and 26 seconds late.
The revenue authorities had refused to condone the delay, labeling the respondent company as a habitual defaulter with a history of non-compliance, including failure to file returns for three successive years. The Assessing Officer's order dated March 5, 2024, rejecting the condonation application on these grounds was challenged by the assessee before the High Court.
The Single Judge had earlier allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee and set aside the rejection order, holding the delay to be minimal and the Assessing Officer's approach as hyper-technical. On appeal, the Division Bench concurred with the Single Judge's reasoning.
The Court emphasized the significance of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowers tax authorities to admit applications or claims for relief even after the prescribed period, provided there is a genuine hardship pleaded by the applicant. In this case, the assessee cited a technical glitch as the reason for the delay, a claim that the department could not rebut or comment upon.
Highlighting that the delay was only a few hours and not days or months, the Court observed that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to avoid filing the return. The judgment reinforced that minor delays caused by genuine difficulties such as technical issues should not be penalized by rigid application of time limits.
The Division Bench's oral judgment by Justice S.G. Pandit noted that the revenue failed to provide any substantial ground to interfere with the Single Judge's order. Consequently, the writ appeal was rejected, affirming the principle that tax laws must be administered with a reasonable and pragmatic approach rather than hyper-technicality.
This ruling is a welcome development for taxpayers who may face unforeseen technical challenges while complying with statutory deadlines. It reiterates the judiciary's stance on balancing strict adherence to procedural timelines with the practical realities of electronic filing systems.
Bottom Line:
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Delay of 2 Hours, 38 Minutes and 26 Seconds in filing return of income - Condonation under Section 119(2)(b) - Where assessee pleaded technical glitch and department could not comment on glitch, refusal to condone such minimal delay held hyper-technical - Writ appeal by Revenue rejected.
Statutory provision(s):
Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 119(2)(b)
