2026 (3) TMI 637 - HC - Income Tax

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 ... Condonation of delay in filing return of income u/s 119(2)(b) - Delay and laches - discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 - petitioner vehemently argues that impugned order should be quashed because respondent no. 1 failed to appreciate that delay was caused solely due to incorrect and arbitrary order passed by respondent no. 2, declaring the original return to be defective and invalid. HELD THAT: - The High Court found that the petition, filed in February 2026, challenged an order but provided no explanation for the delay in approaching the court. While there is no fixed limitation for filing a writ, the Court must be approached within a reasonable time and the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary; delay and laches are relevant factors that may preclude relief. The Court rejected the submission that a three-year period from analogous provisions of the Limitation Act mandates condonation here, held the petitioner's reliance on Bhailal Bhai case [1964 (1) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] to be misplaced, and applied settled principles that delay defeats equity and warrants dismissal where no satisfactory cause is shown. [Paras 6, 11, 13] Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the order passed under Section 119(2)(b) is dismissed for unexplained delay and laches; the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant relief. 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).