TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 11.04.2019, from respondent no. 2, the return was declared to be defective on the ground that total gross receipts allegedly exceeded Rs.1 crore and audit report required in terms of Section 44(A)(B) of IT Act, was not attached with the return. Reminders dated 24.05.2019 and 11.06.2019 were sent by respondent no. 2 via e-mail. Reply is stated to have been filed by petitioner on 24.07.2019 submitting ITR-6 Form highlighting that sale/gross receipts of business was Rs.99,84,068/- only and additional sum of Rs.61,845/- was other income from sale of fixed assets and that audit under Section 44(A)(B) of IT Act is not attracted as business turn over is below statutory limit of Rs.1 crore. This reply, however, is not on record. Respondent no. 2 on 13.01.2020 issued a notice under Section 139(9) of IT Act treating the return as invalid on the ground that gross receipts exceeded Rs.1 crore, thereby requiring a tax audit in terms of Section 44AB of IT Act. Application under Section 119(2)(B) of IT Act was filed by petitioner on 23.06.2022. Application seeking condonation of delay for filing the return explaining bona-fide reasons was stated to be filed. This document is also not on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act. Perusal of writ petition reveals that there is indeed not even a whisper leave alone a reasonable explanation for this delay in filing this writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argues that there is no limitation for filing of a writ petition and has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhailal Bhai's case (supra), to submit that delay may be considered to be unreasonable if it was beyond the period of three years in-as-much as period of limitation prescribed for recovery of money paid by mistake under the Limitation Act, 1963, is 03 years from the date when the mistake comes to light. In our considered opinion, there is no merit in the argument as raised by learned counsel for petitioner. Present writ petition indeed suffers from delay and laches. 7. Undoubtedly, there is no limitation for filing a writ petition, however, it is a settled position and has been held in various decisions by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as this High Court that a litigant should approach the Court within a reasonable period of time. What is a reasonable period would necessarily depend upon nature of stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rightly take into consideration in the exercise of that discretion is the delay made by the aggrieved party in seeking this special remedy and what excuse there is for it. Another is the nature of controversy of facts and law that may have to be decided as regards the availability of consequential relief. Thus, where, as in these cases, a person comes to the Court for relief under Art. 226 on the allegation that he has been assessed to tax under a void legislation and having paid it under a mistake is entitled to get it back, the court, if it finds that the assessment was void, being made under a void provision of law, and the payment was made by mistake, is still not bound to exercise its discretion directing repayment. Whether repayment should be ordered in the exercise of this discretion will depend in each case on its own facts and circumstances. It is not easy nor is it desirable to lay down any rule for universal application. It may however be stated as a general rule that if there has been unreasonable delay the court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by this extraordinary remedy of mandamus." 9. In Bhailal Bhai's case (supra), petitioners therein reali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithin the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned." 10. Gainful reference can also be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 AIR Supreme Court 2717, wherein it has been held as under :- "9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High C....