Genuine hardship requirement under income tax delay condonation was not met, so writ interference with rejection was unwarranted.

Writ interference with rejection of condonation under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act was refused because the applicant failed to show specific, bona fide and cogent material establishing genuine hardship. General claims such as staff shortage, retirements, transfers, COVID-related disruption, and auditor or chartered accountant negligence were treated as unsupported assertions. The authority had passed a speaking order after considering the grounds, and the delay in approaching the authority was substantial. Cited precedents were distinguished on facts, and the rejection was not found to be erroneous, contrary to law, or perverse.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction on the ground of genuine hardship.

Analysis: The application did not disclose specific, bona fide and cogent material showing genuine hardship that prevented timely filing. The stated reasons, including staff shortage, retirements and transfers, COVID-related disruption, and alleged negligence of the auditor and chartered accountant, were treated as general assertions unsupported by particulars. The authority had passed a speaking order after considering the grounds, and the delay in approaching the authority was also substantial. The cited decisions were held distinguishable on facts.

Conclusion: The rejection of condonation was not found to be erroneous, contrary to law, or perverse, and no interference was warranted.

---