ORDER OD – 11 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/251/2026 NILGIRI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED VS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA- 2 AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE Date: 19th June, 2026 Appearance:- Mr. R. R. Modi, Adv. Ms. Shreyosee Mullick, Adv. …for petitioner. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for respondent. 1. The affidavit of Service filed in Court is taken on record. 2. The petitioner in the instant case challenges inter alia, the legality and validity of the Order dated 18.02.2026 for the Assessment Year 2024-25 passed under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 3. The core issue involved in the instant case is as to whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), the respondent No. 1 herein is the authorised officer to entertain the application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC for Assessment Year 2024-25 in the absence of a specific CBDT Circular authorising condonation for that year when Circular No. 17/2024 dated 18.11.2025 only covers Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23. 2 4. The petitioner has a desirable reason causing genuine hardship which prevented timely filing of Form No. 10-IC. The delay was not intentional or designed to gain any undue advantage. 5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the power to condone delay under Section 119 (2)(b) is a statutory power vested directly in the Board and the specified authorities, including the respondent No. 1. The statute does not limit this power to any particular Assessment Year. 6. It is submitted CBDT Circular No. 17/2024 dated 18.11.2024 is an enabling circular issued to address wide spread hardship for Assessment Year 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23. It does not operate as a negated covenant to divest the respondent No. 1 of his statutory power to consider individual cases for other years. A circular cannot override or curtail the provisions of the Act as it held in DCIT Vs Pepsi Foods Limited reported at (2021) 433 ITR 2 95 Supreme Court. 7. It is further submitted where genuine hardship is pleaded the authority vested power under Section 119(2)(b) has a duty to exercise discretion as held in B.M. Malani Vs. CIT reported at 2008(306) ITR 196 Supreme Court. Refusal to entertain the application on merits is a failure to exercise jurisdiction and thus the Order dated 18.02.2026 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Income Tax authorities submits that the impugned order has only rejected the application on the ground of condonation of delay and did not adjudicate 3 upon the petitioner’s substantive eligibility under Section 115BAA of the said Act. 9. It is further submitted that the impugned Order dated 18th February 2026 is fully consistent with Section 119(2)(b) of the said Act as per the binding CBDT Circular No. 17/2024 dated 18th November 2024 and the settled principles governing delegated statutory authorities. Therefore, the order of rejection is sustainable in the eye of law. 10. As per CBDT Circular dated 18.11.2024, the authority to condone delay authorised by the CBDT pertains exclusively to Assessment Year 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. Respondent No. 1 is not authorised by Board for the Assessment Year involved herein i.e. 2024-25. 11. After hearing the parties and upon perusing the record this Court finds that as per the Circular dated 18th November 2024, the respondent No. 1 has been authorised to condone the delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the said Act in filing Form 10-IC exclusively for the Assessment Year 2020- 21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. Since there is no relevant circular for deciding condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC for the relevant Assessment Year 2024-25, the Board is a competent authority to consider and adjudicate the same. 12. As per Section 119(2)(b) of the said Act, CBDT is the competent authority to issue orders instructions and directions to the Income Tax authorities as it may deem fit for the purpose of the said Act. The legislature contemplates the board to be most authoritative body to issue orders and directions to the Income Tax authorities. 4 13. In view of the above, the Order passed under Section 119(2)(b) dated 18.11.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside directing inter alia the petitioner to file an appropriate application under Section 119(2)(b) of the said Act before the respondent no. 3 within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order and the Board shall consider the same within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the application to be filed by the petitioner and shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall communicate such decision within a week there after. 14. With the above observation and direction the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. [SMITA DAS DE, J.] S. Kumar / R. D. Barua