Section 119(2)(b)

Section 119(2)(b) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 119(2)(b), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Sarla Holdings P Ltd v PCIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  I did not tick s.115BAA in the return and filed Form 10-IC late. Can I still get the concessional rate?
  No, if the return itself did not opt. Section 115BAA(5) requires the option to be exercised in the prescribed manner on or before the s.139(1) due date, and Circular 6/2022 condones only a late Form 10-IC where the option was in fact exercised in the return. A company that marked 'None of the above' cannot claim the benefit later, and s.115JB applies.
• CBDT v Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food P Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The CBDT rejected my condonation application without dealing with my reasons. Can I challenge that?
  Yes. A rejection that does not properly consider the reasons advanced and the documents filed is not a proper exercise of the s.119(2)(b) power. Where the delay was demonstrably beyond the assessee's control — prolonged promoter-investor litigation — the High Court was entitled to set the rejection aside and direct that the application be allowed, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's SLP.
• Dalmia Power Ltd v ACIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  Our amalgamation was sanctioned long after the deadline for a revised return. Must the department accept revised returns filed to give effect to the scheme?
  Yes. The Supreme Court held that the department must receive the revised returns for assessment year 2016-17 and complete the assessment taking the sanctioned schemes into account. Section 139(5) did not apply, because the returns were not revised on account of an omission or wrong statement but because of the time taken to obtain the NCLT's sanction, and it was an impossibility to file them by the due date. Section 119(2)(b) and the Board's circular on condonation do not apply where the assessee has restructured with the prior approval of the NCLT and the department raised no objection. Section 170(1) required the successor to be assessed accordingly.
• Bharat Electronics Employees Co-op Credit Society v CCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  Our co-operative credit society filed its return late and lost the section 80P deduction under section 80AC. The Chief Commissioner has rejected our section 119(2)(b) condonation application for want of sufficient cause. Is that rejection sustainable?
  No, not on these facts. The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the Chief Commissioner's order refusing to condone the delay and directed that the return be treated as filed within time. The Court held that co-operative societies became liable to file returns only on the Finance Act, 2018 amendment, that a society run with minimal staff and unaware of the provisions is itself in genuine difficulty, and that the authorities must take a liberal approach towards co-operative societies in the teeth of CBDT Circular No. 13/2023. It did not decide the section 80P claim; that was left to be dealt with in assessment.
• M/s Kanoria Energy and Infrastructure Ltd v CCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  The Commissioner rejected my Form 10-IC condonation application as time-barred under Circular 17/2024, counting from the date of my application and ignoring that I had actually filed the Form years earlier. Is that right?
  No. The Rajasthan High Court set aside the rejection, holding that it was legally unsustainable because it conflated the date of filing of Form 10-IC with the date of the formal condonation application. The Form having been filed on 30 January 2023, within three years of the end of AY 2020-21, and the s.115BAA option having been unambiguously exercised in the return itself, the delay was condoned and the matter remanded with a direction that the authority not consider delay or limitation again.
• Mentaura Technologies Pvt Ltd v PCIT Delhi High CourtHelps departmentHigh Courts differ
  I never filed Form 10-IC for AY 2020-21 and only applied for condonation in January 2025. The Commissioner says I am out of time. Is he right?
  Yes. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition because para 5 of CBDT Circular No. 17/2024 bars any application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC or Form 10-ID made more than three years from the end of the assessment year, which for AY 2020-21 meant 31 March 2024. The application having been made on 20 January 2025, it was not maintainable however good the explanation for the original delay.
• Diebold Nixdorf India Pvt. Ltd. v CBDT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I opted for s.115BAA in my return but filed Form 10-IC late, and my return itself was belated. CBDT has refused to condone the delay because Circular No. 6/2022 requires the return to have been filed within the s.139(1) due date. Is that a good reason?
  No. The Bombay High Court held that filing the return within the s.139(1) due date is not a condition precedent for claiming the benefit of s.115BAA — s.115BAA(5) requires the declaration in Form 10-IC to be filed within that time, not the return — so the first condition in the Board's circular cannot by itself defeat a condonation application. And even where the circular's conditions are not met, the Board retains its independent power under s.119(2)(b) to condone the delay dehors the circular. The delay of 23 days was condoned and the assessment directed to be modified to tax the company under s.115BAA.
• Herald Global Ventures Private Limited v CCIT-1, Ahmedabad High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My start-up's Inter-Ministerial Board certificate for s.80-IAC was refused, so I switched to s.115BAA and filed Form 10-IC 53 days late for AY 2022-23. There is no blanket circular for that year. Can the delay be condoned?
  Yes. The Gujarat High Court quashed the rejection under s.119(2)(b) and directed the competent authority to accept Form 10-IC for AY 2022-23. Where the assessee was otherwise eligible for s.115BAA, refusing to condone a 53-day delay produced a tax liability of Rs. 50,72,890 at the normal rate, and that financial consequence is itself the genuine hardship s.119(2)(b) is designed to relieve.
• Rama Industries Ltd v PCIT Mumbai-3 High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The portal would not accept Form 10-IC for FY 2019-20 before the Circular 6/2022 cut-off of 30 June 2022, and I filed it physically eleven days late. Is the s.115BAA benefit lost?
  No. The Bombay High Court quashed the rejection under s.119(2)(b) and condoned the delay where the assessee had selected s.115BAA in the return, had saved a draft Form 10-IC on the portal before the cut-off but could not submit it because the Financial Year 2019-20 option was not available, and filed a physical Form with the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer eleven days after the extended date.
• Sirez Ltd v Union of India High CourtHelps department
  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.
• Swasth Foundation v CIT (Exemptions) High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Commissioner rejected my condonation application for late Form 9A for an old year. Was Form 9A even required then?
  Not before AY 2016-17. The Bombay High Court held that the requirement to file Form No. 9A to exercise the option under clause (2) of the Explanation to s.11(1) was introduced by the Finance Act 2015 with effect from 1 April 2016, so for AY 2015-16 there was no prescribed format and no delay capable of being condoned. Where the option had been exercised in time by stating it in the Form 10B audit report and in the return, the substantive requirement was met and the s.119(2)(b) rejection was quashed.
• Balaji Landmarks LLP v CBDT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I filed my loss return late on my CA's advice and lost the carry-forward. Will the delay be condoned?
  The Board could not refuse to condone the delay. A delay caused by acting on a professional's opinion is bona fide and not negligence, especially where the issue is fairly complex and unsettled, and refusing condonation would have permanently extinguished the carry forward of losses under s.139(3) read with s.80. The department loses nothing, because s.153(1B) gives the Assessing Officer twelve months from the end of the financial year of the return to assess. The delay was condoned and the assessment directed - but all contentions were kept open, so the losses themselves remain open to examination.
• Columbia Global Center in India v ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1(2), Mumbai High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My trust filed Form 10 only after the scrutiny notice came — 338 days after the due date. The Commissioner refused to condone under s.119(2)(b). Is that the end of the accumulation claim?
  No. Where the substantive conditions of s.11(2) are met — the accumulation is disclosed in the return, the Board resolution and the Form 10B audit report before the s.139(1) due date, the money is invested in a s.11(5) mode and is actually applied within the permitted period — the Bombay High Court held that a liberal view must be taken and the delay in filing Form 10 condoned. The refusal order under s.119(2)(b) was quashed and the delay condoned by the Court itself.
• People's Mobile Hospitals v CIT (Exemption) High CourtHelps taxpayer
  Form 10 was 51 days late because our accountant left mid-year, but it was on the file before the return was processed. The Commissioner still refused to condone. What now?
  The Bombay High Court quashed the refusal and condoned the delay itself. Where the delay is short, unexplained by any wilful default, and the Form was on record when the return was processed, refusing condonation is a pedantic rather than a justice-oriented approach and produces genuine hardship within the meaning of s.119(2)(b).
• Cell Com Teleservices Private Limited v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I opted for the 22 per cent rate in my return but missed filing Form 10-IC by the due date. The Commissioner refused to condone the delay. Can the High Court help?
  Yes. The Allahabad High Court quashed the Principal Commissioner's order refusing condonation under section 119(2)(b) and directed him to condone the delay, accept Form 10-IC for assessment year 2020-21 and recompute the tax liability under section 115BAA. Filing Form 10-IC before the return is not mandatory; where genuine hardship is shown the delay may be condoned, and section 119(2)(b) is to be read as beneficial legislation. The Commissioner had taken an excessively strict view, ignored his own Assessing Officer's favourable report, and exercised his discretion arbitrarily.
• Mirae Asset Venture Investments India Pvt Ltd v PCIT-6 High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I filed my return in time and ticked s.115BAA in the ITR-6, but Form 10-IC went in late and the CPC has already processed the return and raised a demand. Can the delay still be condoned?
  Yes, for AY 2021-22, if the three conditions in CBDT Circular No. 19/2023 dated 23 October 2023 are met. The Bombay High Court held that the Circular imposes no fourth condition — neither the fact that the return was already processed under s.143(1) and a demand raised, nor the fact that the shortfall was detected by the Assessing Officer rather than volunteered, takes the case outside it.
• Sumit Pendharkar v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  TDS was cut on the whole sale price of my flat and I missed the deadline to file. Can the Commissioner refuse to condone the delay?
  Not on these facts. The Gujarat High Court set aside a refusal to condone delay under s.119(2)(b) where a non-resident had tax deducted at source on the gross sale consideration although he had no tax liability at all, and where the Commissioner had passed an ex parte order ignoring a medical certificate explaining why the notice went unanswered. The matter was remanded with a direction to pass a fresh order condoning the delay.
• Technovaa Plastic Industries Private Limited v Central Board of Direct Taxes High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The resolution professional never filed the company's returns during the insolvency process. The new management filed them late and the carry forward of losses has gone. Will the Board condone the delay?
  It must, on these facts. The Gujarat High Court quashed the Board's order refusing condonation under s.119(2)(b) for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and condoned the delay itself, holding that where the suspended management had lost all powers from the date of admission under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the resolution professional had neither had the accounts audited nor filed the returns, and the new management filed them promptly after the resolution plan was approved, refusing condonation would frustrate the very purpose of the approved resolution plan and would amount to genuine hardship.
• Royal LED Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v CCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I claimed the 15 per cent rate under s.115BAB in my return but the portal would not accept Form 10-ID before the due date. My s.119(2)(b) application was rejected before Circular No. 17/2024 came out, so the Department says it can do nothing. Where does that leave me?
  The Gujarat High Court set the rejection aside and directed the authorities to accept the Form 10-ID filed on 12 September 2022 as legal and valid. Once the benefit is claimed in the return, the filing of the separate form is merely procedural and should not be denied where the assessee shows sufficient cause; and the very fact that the Board had to issue Circulars 6/2022, 19/2023 and 17/2024 established that assessees had faced a real problem in filing Forms 10-IC and 10-ID in time.
• Kanyakaparameshwari Co-operative Society Ltd v CCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My co-operative society filed its return late and lost section 80P because of section 80AC. If the delay is condoned under section 119(2)(b), does the deduction come back?
  On this Karnataka view, yes. The Court held that section 80AC does not say in express terms that the deduction becomes inadmissible if the delay in filing the return is condoned, so an order under section 119(2)(b) condoning the delay clears the way for the claim. It adopted its earlier decision in Sullia Taluk Womens Multi Purpose Co-operative Society and read the Central Board's circular of 26 July 2023, which directs the authorities to admit and decide condonation applications from audited co-operative societies for assessment years 2018-19 to 2022-23 on the merits. The rejection of the society's application was quashed and the delay condoned, and the Court went on to quash the completed assessment as well and remit the claim for fresh consideration.
• K S Bilawala v PCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I paid tax on a receipt that was never taxable and the deadline has passed. Is that genuine hardship?
  Yes. Genuine hardship under s.119(2)(b) is not confined to financial distress — where an assessee feels he has paid more tax than he was liable to pay, that is hardship enough to warrant condonation. The rejection was set aside and the authority directed to condone the delay and decide the matter on its substantive merits.
• Bar Council of India v CIT (Exemption) High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  Our professional body has always claimed s.10(23A). We realised mid-assessment that we needed s.11 and filed Form 10 late. Can the Commissioner refuse to condone the delay?
  Not on the reasoning used here. The Delhi High Court set aside the Commissioner's refusal, holding that the explanation offered — that the body's officials had not noticed the amendments to ss.11 and 13 made by the Finance Act 2015 with effect from 1 April 2016 — was not one there was reason to disbelieve, and that no benefit could accrue to the body from delaying. The failure to claim accumulation in the return cannot itself be read as showing an intention not to file Form 10.
• Trust for Reaching the Unreached v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  Our audit report was not e-filed with the return and exemption was denied. Can the delay be condoned?
  Yes. The requirement to furnish the audit report with the return is procedural and directory, so exemption under ss.11 and 12 cannot be refused merely for late filing. The Commissioner's refusal to condone was set aside because the s.119(2)(b) discretion must be exercised equitably and judiciously, not on an exclusively pro-revenue view.
• Sitaldas K. Motwani v Director General of Income-tax (International Taxation) High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My refund claim is late and the Commissioner has refused to condone the delay under section 119(2)(b) because I had no good reason for filing late — is that the right test?
  No, that alone is too narrow. The Bombay High Court held that 'genuine hardship' in section 119(2)(b) must be construed liberally, and the authority is not confined to asking whether some substantial cause prevented a timely return. Refusing condonation can throw out a meritorious claim at the threshold, whereas condoning it means at worst that the matter is decided on merits. On the correctness of the refund claim the authority must see only that a prima facie case exists that is not bound to fail for an apparent defect, not prejudge the merits. The refusal was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
• Tanisha Chaudhary v Income-tax Officer, Ward 5(2)(4), Noida ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My AY 2020-21 return was 72 days late because of Covid and the short-term capital loss was refused. Four years on I want to set that loss off against this year's gains. Can I argue the delay in the current year's appeal?
  No. The Delhi Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that s.80 makes it mandatory to file the return of loss in terms of s.139(3), and that where the carry forward was denied when the loss year's return was processed under s.143(1), the remedy against that denial does not lie in an appeal for the later set-off year. Kulu Valley Transport was distinguished on its facts.
• Humanitarian Hands v ITO (Exemptions) Ward-1, Bengaluru ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  Our auditor filed Form 10BB when Form 10B was required for AY 2023-24, and CPC has taxed us under s.13(10). We filed the right form only in 2025 and the condonation application is still pending. What can the Tribunal do?
  The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass an order in accordance with the outcome of the pending s.119(2)(b) condonation application before the CIT (Exemptions). It recorded that this was not a case of no audit report at all but of a report filed both belatedly and in the incorrect form, and that CBDT Circular No. 2/2024 did not rescue the trust because that circular only covered wrong-form reports furnished on or before 31 October 2023.
• Sanchit Gupta v DCIT (CPC), TDS ITATHelps taxpayer
  I bought a flat and deducted 1 per cent under s.194-IA. CPC has raised a 20 per cent short-deduction demand because the seller's PAN was inoperative for want of Aadhaar linking. The seller has since linked it. Is there any way out?
  Yes, but not the one most people reach for. The Delhi Bench held that the assessee fell outside the CBDT relief circulars on his dates, and that subsequent linking does not retrospectively cure the position. It nonetheless directed that no s.206AA liability be cast on him if the seller is shown to have declared the sale in her return and paid the tax, applying the Ansal Landmark principle by analogy, and remitted the matter for verification — observing that the department was equally responsible for not red-flagging inoperative PANs in its own system.
• Saguna Rural Foundation v Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  CPC denied my s.11(2) accumulation because Form 10 was filed after the s.139(1) due date, and the CIT(A) said s.13(9) settles it. Can the Tribunal still help me?
  Yes. Following the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v Sakal Relief Fund, the Mumbai Tribunal held that filing Form No. 10 before completion of assessment satisfies s.11(2), so a s.143(1) denial founded only on the s.139(1) due date cannot stand. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of checking that the stated purpose of accumulation matches the objects and is backed by a trustees' resolution, with an express direction not to deny exemption on merely technical grounds.
• CDO Jain Education Society v ACIT (CPC) ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My institution filed its audit report on time but in Form 10B when Form 10BB was the right form, and the CPC has denied the exemption and raised a demand on the gross receipts. Is filing the wrong audit form fatal?
  No. Where the accounts were in fact audited by a chartered accountant and an audit report was uploaded within time, the choice of the wrong form is a procedural lapse and not a failure of the substantive condition, and exemption cannot be denied on that ground alone. The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and directed the Assessing Officer to verify substantive compliance and, if satisfied, to condone the procedural lapse, allow the exemption and reduce the demand to nil.
• Getinge Medical India Private Limited v DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  Can the Tribunal itself give me the s.115BAA rate where Form 10-IC was late, or must I go to the Commissioner under s.119(2)(b)?
  The Mumbai Tribunal held that where the option was clearly exercised in the return itself and the tax computed accordingly, the substantive requirement of s.115BAA(5) is satisfied and the later filing of Form 10-IC is procedural, so the time limit for the Form is directory. It condoned a delay of about 45 days and directed the Assessing Officer to accept the option and recompute the tax at the concessional rate, without sending the assessee to the Commissioner.
• Jhaverbhai Patel Research Centre v CIT (Exemptions) ITATHelps taxpayer
  Our Form 10AB went in 38 days after the Charity Commissioner's order instead of 30, and the CIT (Exemptions) rejected it on that ground and on how we had spent our money. Is there a way back?
  Yes, though what you get is a remand and not registration. The Mumbai Tribunal held that the delay should not be visited on the trust — the Charity Commissioner's order had reached it late, and measured from receipt the application was within thirty days — and that the authority must adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach. It also rejected the second ground, holding that a scholarship paid in India, in rupees, to an Indian student who then studies abroad is not an application of income outside India. It did not itself pass an order condoning the delay: it set aside the CIT (Exemptions)'s order, restored the application to him to be decided on its merits, and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
• ITD Cementation India Ltd v DCIT — an omitted Ind-AS reduction from book profit can still be claimed before the appellate authority ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  We forgot to claim the one-fifth transition amount and the s.115JB(2A)(b) other-comprehensive-income reduction in the return. We raised it by letter during the assessment. The CIT(A) has thrown it out because no revised return was filed. Is that the end of it?
  No. The bar on entertaining a fresh claim without a revised return operates against the Assessing Officer, not against an appellate authority. Where the material was before the CIT(A) he should have examined it and granted the reduction from book profit if it was allowable, and the Tribunal restored the two Ind-AS claims to the Assessing Officer to be reconsidered on the revised Form 29B.
• CBDT Circular 16/2024 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayer
  Our Form 10B is years late. Who can condone the delay, and how long do I have to apply?
  Apply within three years from the end of the assessment year concerned. Delays up to 365 days are decided by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; delays beyond 365 days go to the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner or Director General. The circular covers Forms 9A, 10, 10B and 10BB for assessment year 2018-19 onwards.
• Statutory position — section 139AA(2) and rule 114AAA: what an inoperative PAN actually does, and the CBDT circulars that undo it CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  CPC has raised a short-deduction demand on me because my payee's PAN was inoperative for want of Aadhaar linking. What exactly does an inoperative PAN do, and is there any Board relief?
  An inoperative PAN carries four consequences and only four, and rule 114AAA(3) lists them: no refund of tax is made, no interest is payable on that refund for the period, tax deductible under Chapter XVII-B is deducted at the higher rate under section 206AA, and tax collectible under Chapter XVII-BB is collected at the higher rate under section 206CC. The third and fourth of those fall on the DEDUCTOR or COLLECTOR, not on the person who failed to link, which is why the demand lands on someone who did nothing wrong. The Board has issued a sequence of circulars relieving the deductor where the PAN is made operative by a date, and the sequence — Circular No. 3/2023 dated 28 March 2023, Circular No. 6/2024 dated 23 April 2024 and Circular No. 9/2025 dated 21 July 2025 — is the first thing to check, before any argument on merits.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.