2026 (5) TMI 232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents. Perused the record. 2. The instant is a writ petition which has been filed assailing the order dated 28.11.2025 i.e., rejection order passed by the respondents rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') whereby the petitioner had sought for condonation of delay in filing of the income tax returns for the assessment year 2021-22. 3. The application filed by the applicant was rejected by the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) holding that the petitioner has not made out any strong case which would meet the requirement as is envisaged under Section under Section 119(2) (b) of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e hardship which arose in the intervening period, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the High Court of Kerala in the case of PALA MARKETING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA [(2008 167 Taxman 236 (Kerala)] and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in W.P (L) No.7783/2024, decided on 08.04.2024, in support his contention seeking for condonation of delay in filing of the ITR. 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department opposing the petition submitted that it is a case where the contents of Section 119(2)(b), if read in a whole, by itself would go to show that no sufficient case establishing the genuine hardship has been reflected in the application. Moreover, the ground....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... we could not file the same within the prescribed time limit under Section 139(1). That the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and has occurred due to circumstances beyond our control. As the Government Nodal agency without having any profit motive providing services in the marketing field for members/farmers in the State. 7. The Commissioner went on and considered the entire application on its own merits and has passed a speaking order on 28.11.2025 which again is now being challenged after more than four months. On a query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, they were not in a position to state before the Bench as to whether the petitioner has been able to submit the ITRs for the subsequent assess....