I filed my return years late and I am owed a TDS refund. Will the High Court set aside a refusal to condone the delay?
Not without evidence. The Delhi High Court dismissed this petition and left the refusal standing. A generic explanation for a thirty month delay, unsupported by any document, is not 'genuine hardship', and the fact that returns for the years on either side were filed on time told against the company.
Decided by the High Court (V. Kameswar Rao J and Madhu Jain J) on 2025-12-08, reported as W.P.(C) 405/2024 (Delhi)(HC); law-report citation not printed on the fetched source. It bears on section 119(2)(b), section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Refunds, Interest & Condonation matters.
Most reported s.119(2)(b) decisions are wins for the taxpayer, which makes the refusals easy to overlook. This one shows where the line falls: the liberal construction of 'genuine hardship' is not a licence, the burden of proving the cause of the delay is on the applicant, and the length of the delay matters. It is the counterweight to Sumit Pendharkar on almost identical statutory ground.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner company was incorporated on 15 June 2005 and carries on digital marketing, content marketing, digital media planning, social media marketing and web development. Its return for AY 2018-19 was due on 30 September 2018, extended to 15 October 2018 and again to 31 October 2018. It was filed on 20 September 2021, a delay the Court measured at thirty months. The company applied under s.119(2)(b) for condonation, seeking refund of tax deducted at source of Rs 19,73,540 and carry forward of a business loss of Rs 1,06,60,750. The delay was attributed to a dispute between the directors, said to have intensified in the third quarter of financial year 2017-18 and to have led to resignations, coupled with a financial crunch. The application was rejected by order dated 23 November 2023, F. No. 312/154/2021-OT, passed with reference to CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 dated 9 June 2015. The company's returns for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20 had been filed on 31 July 2017 and 30 July 2020 respectively.
The petition was dismissed (para 37). An internal dispute among the directors of a company that is a going concern is not genuine hardship and is not a reason for failing to discharge the statutory obligation to file a return; the plea was in any event not borne out by the record, no document evidencing it having been filed, and the timely filing of returns for the adjacent assessment years showed the return in question could also have been filed (para 31).
The Court framed the short issue as whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the s.119(2)(b) application (para 28), fixed the due date as extended to 31 October 2018 and the delay at thirty months (para 29), and recorded the company's case as a directors' dispute plus a financial crunch resolved only after thirty months (para 30). It found the submission unconvincing: an internal dispute among directors is not genuine hardship, a dispute among directors of a going concern cannot excuse a statutory obligation, the plea was unsupported by any document, and returns for the adjacent years had been filed on time (para 31). The authorities relied on by the company were held inapplicable (para 32). Vasudev Adigas was distinguished on its facts: there the management dispute was established by proceedings before the Company Law Board at Chennai and an appeal in the Karnataka High Court, which had appointed an auditor to complete the statutory audit and file the return, whereas here no record of any pending litigation had been produced either before the department or before the Court (para 33). Pankaj Kailash Agarwal was distinguished because there the return had been filed within time and audited and only the online audit report was missing, and VRG Electronics because the delay there was sixty days caused by an accountant's ill health; to condone thirty months would be a vast expansion of 'genuine hardship' in the absence of any extraordinary circumstance (para 34). Sitaldas K. Motwani was accepted as explaining that 'genuine hardship' must be construed liberally, but the Court held that so liberal a construction as to excuse thirty months on a generic reason would be a travesty of the legislative intent (para 35). K.C. Antony was noted as having been overruled by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and in any event as concerning the limitation period for a s.119 application (para 36).
Even otherwise, we are of the view, the dispute between the Directors, when the company is an ongoing concern cannot be the reason to not to file the ITR which is a statutory obligation on the part of the company.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot without evidence. The Delhi High Court dismissed this petition and left the refusal standing. A generic explanation for a thirty month delay, unsupported by any document, is not 'genuine hardship', and the fact that returns for the years on either side were filed on time told against the company. This was decided by the High Court (V. Kameswar Rao J and Madhu Jain J) and bears on section 119(2)(b), section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as W.P.(C) 405/2024 (Delhi)(HC); law-report citation not printed on the fetched source. Most reported s.119(2)(b) decisions are wins for the taxpayer, which makes the refusals easy to overlook. This one shows where the line falls: the liberal construction of 'genuine hardship' is not a licence, the burden of proving the cause of the delay is on the applicant, and the length of the delay matters. It is the counterweight to Sumit Pendharkar on almost identical statutory ground. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Put the cause of the delay on the record with documents, not assertions. The Court refused relief expressly because the claimed dispute among the directors was 'not borne out from the record' and no document evidencing it had been filed.
The petitioner company was incorporated on 15 June 2005 and carries on digital marketing, content marketing, digital media planning, social media marketing and web development. Its return for AY 2018-19 was due on 30 September 2018, extended to 15 October 2018 and again to 31 October 2018. It was filed on 20 September 2021, a delay the Court measured at thirty months. The company applied under s.119(2)(b) for condonation, seeking refund of tax deducted at source of Rs 19,73,540 and carry forward of a business loss of Rs 1,06,60,750. The delay was attributed to a dispute between the directors, said to have intensified in the third quarter of financial year 2017-18 and to have led to resignations, coupled with a financial crunch. The application was rejected by order dated 23 November 2023, F. No. 312/154/2021-OT, passed with reference to CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 dated 9 June 2015. The company's returns for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20 had been filed on 31 July 2017 and 30 July 2020 respectively. The matter was decided on 2025-12-08 by the High Court (V. Kameswar Rao J and Madhu Jain J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The petition was dismissed (para 37). An internal dispute among the directors of a company that is a going concern is not genuine hardship and is not a reason for failing to discharge the statutory obligation to file a return; the plea was in any event not borne out by the record, no document evidencing it having been filed, and the timely filing of returns for the adjacent assessment years showed the return in question could also have been filed (para 31).
The Court framed the short issue as whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the s.119(2)(b) application (para 28), fixed the due date as extended to 31 October 2018 and the delay at thirty months (para 29), and recorded the company's case as a directors' dispute plus a financial crunch resolved only after thirty months (para 30). It found the submission unconvincing: an internal dispute among directors is not genuine hardship, a dispute among directors of a going concern cannot excuse a statutory obligation, the plea was unsupported by any document, and returns for the adjacent years had been filed on time (para 31). The authorities relied on by the company were held inapplicable (para 32). Vasudev Adigas was distinguished on its facts: there the management dispute was established by proceedings before the Company Law Board at Chennai and an appeal in the Karnataka High Court, which had appointed an auditor to complete the statutory audit and file the return, whereas here no record of any pending litigation had been produced either before the department or before the Court (para 33). Pankaj Kailash Agarwal was distinguished because there the return had been filed within time and audited and only the online audit report was missing, and VRG Electronics because the delay there was sixty days caused by an accountant's ill health; to condone thirty months would be a vast expansion of 'genuine hardship' in the absence of any extraordinary circumstance (para 34). Sitaldas K. Motwani was accepted as explaining that 'genuine hardship' must be construed liberally, but the Court held that so liberal a construction as to excuse thirty months on a generic reason would be a travesty of the legislative intent (para 35). K.C. Antony was noted as having been overruled by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and in any event as concerning the limitation period for a s.119 application (para 36). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Even otherwise, we are of the view, the dispute between the Directors, when the company is an ongoing concern cannot be the reason to not to file the ITR which is a statutory obligation on the part of the company." The decision followed or applied Central Board of Direct Taxes v. Vasudev Adigas Fast Food (P) Ltd. — distinguished on the facts, para 33; Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. ACIT, W.P.(L) No. 7783/2024 (Bombay) — distinguished, para 34; VRG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT, W.P.(C) 753/2025 (Delhi) — distinguished, para 34; Sitaldas K. Motwani v. Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation) (2010) 323 ITR 223 (Bombay) — accepted as to the liberal construction of 'genuine hardship' but held not to carry a delay of this length, para 35; K.C. Antony v. PCIT, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5830 — noted as overruled by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and in any event distinguishable, para 36; Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536 — cited by the petitioner and held inapplicable, para 32.
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-12-08 and is reported as W.P.(C) 405/2024 (Delhi)(HC); law-report citation not printed on the fetched source. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 119(2)(b), section 139(4), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The petition was dismissed (para 37). An internal dispute among the directors of a company that is a going concern is not genuine hardship and is not a reason for failing to discharge the statutory obligation to file a return; the plea was in any event not borne out by the record, no document evidencing it having been filed, and the timely filing of returns for the adjacent assessment years showed the return in question could also have been filed (para 31). It arises in Refunds, Interest & Condonation matters, on section 119(2)(b), section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by V. Kameswar Rao J and Madhu Jain J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Check your own filing history for the years on either side before you apply. Timely returns for the preceding and following years were treated here as showing that the return in question could also have been filed. Be realistic about the length of the delay. A delay of sixty days on account of an accountant's illness was distinguished; thirty months on a generic reason was not condoned. If you rely on Vasudev Adigas, be ready to match its facts: there the management dispute was proved by pending proceedings before the Company Law Board and an order of the Karnataka High Court appointing an auditor. An unproved dispute is not the same case.
Still good law. A recent Division Bench decision; no appellate history exists yet and none was located. It does not displace the line of authority requiring 'genuine hardship' to be construed liberally, which it expressly accepts at para 35; it decides that the liberal construction does not reach an unevidenced thirty month delay. It was read only from the Delhi High Court's own PDF; the case could not be located on indiankanoon, and no law report citation was found, so the case number should be cited rather than a report reference. Read it with the taxpayer side of the same provision: Sumit Pendharkar v CIT (sumit-pendharkar-v-cit-119-2b-nri-refund), where the Gujarat High Court set aside a refusal to condone on proved medical hardship where the tax deducted exceeded any liability. The two are a matched pair on s.119(2)(b) — hardship proved and documented there, asserted and unproved here. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
This entry was added on verification of batch B11 as a Revenue-side counterweight; the batch as originally drafted contained only one Revenue win. The judgment was read from the Delhi High Court's own PDF, not from indiankanoon, which does not appear to carry it. Paragraph 33 contains a quoted observation of the Supreme Court in the Vasudev Adigas matter which the retrieval returned only as a bracketed description; nothing in this entry rests on it. The Court's statement at para 36 that K.C. Antony has been overruled by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court is recorded as printed and has not been independently checked. Retrieval note for later passes: individual Delhi High Court judgments are GET-addressable at delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/<id>.pdf and that URL is read cleanly, which is how this judgment was read. Earlier passes had written the site off because /judgements returns 404 and the search form is POST-driven; that conclusion was wrong, and the PDF route should be tried before any Delhi decision is recorded as unobtainable. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The petition was dismissed (para 37). An internal dispute among the directors of a company that is a going concern is not genuine hardship and is not a reason for failing to discharge the statutory obligation to file a return; the plea was in any event not borne out by the record, no document evidencing it having been filed, and the timely filing of returns for the adjacent assessment years showed the return in question could also have been filed (para 31).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The CBDT rejected my condonation application without dealing with my reasons. Can I challenge that?
I did not tick s.115BAA in the return and filed Form 10-IC late. Can I still get the concessional rate?
I filed my return late. When is the 276CC offence committed, and is it still a first offence?
I filed my loss return late on my CA's advice and lost the carry-forward. Will the delay be condoned?