Missed filing ITR on time? Why Delhi HC refused to condone delay in this case

In a important ruling connected the scope of condonation powers nether the Income Tax Act, the Delhi High Court has held that ignorance of taxation laws, deficiency of consciousness of deductions, oregon wide assertions of hardship bash not represent “genuine hardship” warranting condonation of hold nether Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar dismissed a writ petition filed by Manjit Singh Dhaliwal, upholding the rejection of his exertion seeking condonation of hold successful filing his Income Tax Return (ITR) for Assessment Year 2020–21.Background And FactsThe petitioner, a Canadian national residing successful British Columbia, claimed to beryllium a non-resident for the applicable appraisal year.

He had sold an immovable spot successful India for a full information of Rs 2,00,16,550/- and had besides earned involvement income of Rs 19,246/- during the aforesaid period. Tax had already been deducted astatine root connected the transaction and deposited with the Government of India.Despite this, the petitioner failed to record his ITR wrong the prescribed clip nether the Income Tax Act.On 06.06.2025, astir 5 years later, helium moved an exertion nether Section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay.

He claimed that helium had been surviving extracurricular India for respective years, was unfamiliar with the Indian taxation authorities and did not recognize the taxation consequences of the spot transaction, which was carried retired by a Power of Attorney.He further claimed that being a elder national with nary cognition of taxation laws, his nonaccomplishment to record the instrumentality was a bona fide error. He besides relied connected factors specified arsenic wellness issues, COVID-19 related question restrictions, and deficiency of consciousness of TDS deductions.The petitioner relied connected the operation "genuine hardship" nether Section 119(2)(b), arguing that the word should beryllium interpreted broadly and technicalities should not travel successful the mode of important justice. Impugned Order of the Tax AuthorityThe Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) rejected the application, holding that the petitioner had failed to found immoderate genuine hardship oregon tenable origin for the delay.The authorization observed that the reasons cited, peculiarly ignorance of TDS deduction, were wide successful quality and did not represent a valid ground. It relied connected the settled ineligible maxim:“ignorantia legis neminem excusat” ((ignorance of instrumentality is nary excuse)The authorization further noted that the petitioner’s reliance connected aesculapian issues was misplaced, arsenic the surgeries cited had taken spot successful 2008 and 2011, agelong earlier the applicable appraisal year.

It besides observed that the petitioner had executed a spot transaction done a Power of Attorney, which indicated that helium was susceptible of managing his fiscal affairs done representatives.The authorization besides rejected the COVID-related argument, and held that:“the assessee could person easy filed ITR online connected Income Tax Portal from anyplace and frankincense determination was nary request to beryllium physically contiguous successful the country.”It was besides clarified that superior gains are taxable successful the twelvemonth of transportation of spot and not successful the twelvemonth of receipt of consideration, thereby negating the petitioner’s knowing of taxation liability.The authorization concluded that:“the assessee has failed to found a lawsuit of genuine hardship oregon bring retired immoderate circumstantial tenable cause… the application… is devoid of merits.”Court’s ConsiderationThe High Court examined the impugned bid and the reasons furnished by the petitioner and recovered nary merit successful the challenge.The Court specifically rejected the submissions that the petitioner’s deficiency of consciousness of taxation laws oregon his alleged illiteracy could warrant the delay. It held that specified a plea was not tenable successful law.Referring to the settled principle, the Court observed:“on the rule of ignorantia juris non excusat, i.e. ignorance of instrumentality is nary excuse…”The Court relied upon its earlier determination successful Puneet Rastogi v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), wherever it had held:“This Court is of the presumption that ignorance of instrumentality is not an excuse… Consequently… determination was nary genuine hardship oregon tenable origin for precocious filing of the return.”Scope Of Section 119(2)(b) And “Genuine Hardship”The Court besides upheld the presumption of the taxation section astir the constrictive ambit of condonation nether Section 119(2)(b). It observed that the proviso allows the taxation authorization to condone lone genuine hardship and not arsenic a substance of routine. The Court cited its erstwhile determination successful B.U. Bhandari Nandgude Patil Associates v. CBDT, and reiterated:“Statutory clip limits fixed person to beryllium adhered to… hold of clip cannot beryllium claimed arsenic a vested close connected specified asking and connected the ground of vague assertions without proof.”The Court besides took enactment of the rule that:“mere information that a default occurred owed to immoderate crushed is not capable to found the assertion of genuine hardship.”Requirement Of Strict Compliance With Time LimitsThe Court emphasised the value of maintaining subject successful statutory timelines, peculiarly successful taxation matters. It observed that regulation provisions are indispensable to guarantee orderly and timely completion of assessments. The authority’s reliance connected judicial precedents was noted, including the rule laid down successful Ranka & Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. that:“every time of hold needs to beryllium explained with cogent evidences.”The Court recovered that nary specified cogent mentation had been provided successful the contiguous case.The Court besides rejected the statement that the petitioner’s presumption arsenic a non-resident Indian oregon the beingness of question restrictions justified the delay. It noted that income taxation returns tin beryllium filed electronically from immoderate determination and carnal beingness successful India is not required.Relying connected its determination successful Sanjay Khurana v. Income Tax Department, the Court observed:“the plea… being a non-resident Indian… is not appealing arsenic e-portal was accessible globally.”After considering the entirety of the worldly connected record, the High Court concurred with the findings of the taxation authorization and held that nary interference was warranted.The Court observed:“We concur with the presumption taken by the serviceman successful the impugned bid and find nary crushed to interfere with the same.”It concluded by holding:“Being bereft of immoderate merits, the petition is dismissed.”The writ petition, on with the pending application, was accordingly dismissed.

(Vatsal Chandra is simply a Delhi-based Advocate practicing earlier the courts of Delhi NCR.)