Delay and Laches bar extraordinary writ relief; absence of acceptable explanation led to dismissal of challenge to condonation refusal.

Petition challenging rejection under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act for condonation of delay was evaluated on delay and laches principles in extraordinary writ jurisdiction; the court applied settled tests that no fixed limitation exists but a petitioner must approach within a reasonable time, that delay and laches are discretionary bars to Article 226 relief, and that absence of a sufficient explanation disentitles the petitioner. Consequently, on the stated factual absence of acceptable explanation for long delay, the writ petition was dismissed and relief under Section 119(2)(b) refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order dated 30.05.2023 rejecting the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for condonation of delay in filing the return for assessment year 2018-19 should be entertained despite the delay and laches in filing the writ petition.

Analysis: The petition challenges an order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 rejecting condonation of delay in filing the return. The Court examined whether the petitioner has furnished any reasonable explanation for the long delay in approaching the High Court since the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 and considered settled principles on delay and laches in invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court applied the established tests that (i) there is no fixed limitation for filing a writ petition but the petitioner must approach the court within a reasonable time depending on the nature of rights and liabilities; (ii) delay and laches are relevant discretionary factors that may disentitle a litigant from extraordinary relief; and (iii) the cause for delay must be examined to determine whether it constitutes sufficient cause. Reliance was placed on precedent establishing that unreasonable delay ordinarily disentitles a party to the extraordinary remedy and that the discretion under Article 226 must be exercised with care and caution, taking into account the absence of any acceptable explanation for delay.

Conclusion: Writ petition dismissed for delay and laches; relief denied and challenge to the order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is refused (result adverse to the petitioner and in favour of the revenue).

---