1 2025:CGHC:53295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 164 of 2024 Cecon Consultants Private Limited, Through Ajeet Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ombir Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Working As Director, Having Registered Office At 12A, First Floor Commercial Complex, Nehru Nagar West, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India, New-Delhi, Delhi. 2 - Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, PCIT, Raipur-1, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1), Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Deputy Director Of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru (Karnataka) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None present For Respondents 2 to 5 : Mr. Ajay Kumarani, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 31/10/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- 10.1 To issue a writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling the records from the BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.11.03 11:21:06 +0530 2 respondent authorities concerned for perusal of this Hon’ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of case. 10.2 To issue a writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing the defective notice dated 23/01/2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.5. 10.3 To issue a writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing the impugned order dated 24/07/2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2. 10.4 To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the application under Sec.119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income and provide permission to the petitioner to rectify the defect in return or grant permission to file a revised income tax return for the A.Y. 2022-2023. 10.5 To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to condone the delay and remanding the matter back to respondent authorities for proper adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 10.6 To issue a writ in the nature of appropriate writ condoning the delay and directing respondent authorities provide permission to the petitioner to rectify the defect in return or grant permission to file a revised income tax return for the A.Y. 2022-2023. 10.7 Cost of the proceedings. 10.8 To grant any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for imparting complete and substantial justice to the petitioner. 3 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed Income Tax Return along with other relevant financial statements for the assessment year 2022-2023 on 22.10.2022. Since the gross income of the petitioner for aforesaid assessment year was within Rs.10 crores, therefore, he was not required to file audit report as provided under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act 1961’). But while filing the return, Chartered Accountant of the petitioner/ Company, inadvertently put tick mark on Clause ‘Applicability of Tax Audit’, whereas, that clause was not applicable to the petitioner, but because of that mistake, respondent No.5 issued notice (Annexure-P/1) to the effect that return filed by the petitioner is defective, as no audit report has been filed by it. However, that notice was not served to the petitioner, rather it went to ‘Spam folder’ of the petitioner/Company. Therefore, he could not respond to the notice in time, rather the petitioner came to know about aforesaid notice in the month of August 2023, therefore, he filed application dated 27.6.2024 (Annexure-P/7) praying to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file fresh revised return by condoning the delay in filing revised return, but the same has been rejected vide Order dated 24.7.2024 (Annexure-P/8). Learned counsel further submits that the mistake was occurred due to inadvertence and it was bonafide. The petitioner wants to file revised return for the assessment year 2022-2023, therefore, he prays that this petition may be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file application to condone the delay, as provided under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, 1961, so that after condoning the delay, the petitioner may file revised return for the assessment year 2022-2023. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5 submits that though there is provision to condone delay in filing return, but 4 since the return was already filed by the petitioner, which was defective and while filing the application to condone the delay, he did not submit proper documents to substantiate the cause raised by him to condone the delay, therefore, his application was rejected by respondent No.2. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The mistake committed by the petitioner in filing the return is found to be bonafide, as some entry was made inadvertently. The petitioner is ready to file revised return. It is also informed by the petitioner that since the notice (Annexure-P/1) issued to the petitioner was moved to ‘Spam’ folder and any such notice/information etc. entered into the spam folder, is deleted within 30 days, therefore, he could not know about it within limitation period. 6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and particularly the fact that the petitioner wants to file revised return, without going to the merits of the case, I feel inclined to dispose of this petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application for condonation of delay in filing the return(revised return), as provided under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act 1961, within 15 days from today, before respondent No.2/competent authority. On being filed such application, the respondent authority is expected to consider and decide the same in accordance with law and applicable rules, within further period of 30 days from the date of filing of the application by the petitioner. Further consequence shall follow. 7. In view of the above observation, instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini