[2026:RJ-JP:15483-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4966/2026 Ashank Clouds Private Limited, Having Its Address At Flat No 50, Audiotors Enclave Narsinghpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur 303905 Through Its Director Smt. Madhu Khandelwal Aged About 44 Years Wife Of Virendra Khandelwal Resident Of 528, Subhash Colony, Jaipur 302016 ----Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shankar Lal Poddar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/04/2026 1. The instant D.B. civil writ petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved from order dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure-9) passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2 (PCIT) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1961'). 2. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with following prayer:- "(a) Quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure 9) passed u/S. 119(2)(b) of the Act and consequentially allow the petitioners application seeking condonation of delay in filing of [2026:RJ-JP:15483-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-4966/2026] Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2022- 2023; (b) to allow the Writ Petition and award costs of this petition; (c) for such further and other reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon order dated 24.01.2019 in case of G.V. Infosutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. : W.P. (C) No.8436/2018 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, submits that Section 119 of the Act of 1961 allows the respondent to condone the delay if same is neither intentional, willful, nor deliberate. He further submits that the petitioner has submitted sufficient reason for condonation of delay but same was not considered by the respondent despite genuine hardship of the petitioner. He further submits that the application was rejected in a mechanical manner and without opportunity of hearing. He also submits that the respondent was duty-bound to consider the ground raised by the petitioner and on basis of the ground, duty bound to address the reasons as assigned by the petitioner. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and submitted that the petitioner was given an opportunity to substantiate the reasons of delay but he failed to substantiate the reasons so as to enable the respondent to condone the delay. He further placed reliance upon judgment dated 20.11.2025 in case of Sanjay Khurana vs Income Tax Department Ministry of Finance : W.P.(C) No. [2026:RJ-JP:15483-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-4966/2026] 17379/2025 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. At last, he submits that the ground for condonation of delay is ignorance of law and same is unexcusable. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. Instant writ petition is filed aggrieved from order dated 19.11.2025 for Assessment Year 2022-23 passed by PCIT whereby he refused to condone delay in filing Return for year 2022-23. In the order dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure-9), the contentions of petitioner were mentioned that the petitioner was unaware about TDS deduction and non-filing of ITR which resulted into additional loss in unclaimed TDS. The petitioner has sought permission to file ITR for the Financial Year 2021-22 (AY 2022-23). The PCIT has called the report from CIT Range-6, Jaipur, and then considered the prayer. The claim of the petitioner is that they were unaware about the fact that ITR needs to be filed. The report indicated that the assessee did not face any genuine hardship in filing ITR and it is simply ignorance of law. 7. Section 119(2)(a) of the Act of 1961 allows the CBDT to relax strict enforcement of certain provisions in public interest or to avoid genuine hardship applicable to classes of taxpayers or specific cases. 8. Section 119(2)(b) of the Act of 1961 authorizes CBDT to direct authorities to admit delayed claim for exemption, deduction, refund from carry forward losses or other relief even after expiry of time limit, if delay was due to circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control. [2026:RJ-JP:15483-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-4966/2026] 9. The circumstances considered for condonation normally are illness, natural calamities or any other ground such as strike or lockout or even technical issues, if verified. To seek condonation, an application is required to be filed before the jurisdictional authority and the authority after verification about genuineness may direct assessing authority for scrutiny. 10. The petitioner has claimed ignorance of law and same is not a valid ground of condonation of delay. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in case of Manjit Singh Dhaliwal Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation : W.P.(C) No. 19589/2020 while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Puneet Rastogi v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income- tax (International Taxation) and another :(2023) 454 ITR 37 has held that on the principle of "ignorantia juris non excusat", i.e. the ignorance of law is not an excuse. 11. Again, considering the issue in case of Sanjay Khurana v. Income Tax Department Ministry of Finance : 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8910 held that ignorance of law or dependence on an advisor is generally not accepted as sufficient cause. “Genuine Hardship” typically requires unexpected or unavoidable circumstances beyond the assessee's reasonable control. The burden lies upon the petitioner (assessee) to prove and establish bonafide with evidence and routine default like ignorance are not condonable under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act of 1961. 12. Here in this case, the petitioner has failed to show genuine hardship means real, unavoidable financial or practical difficulties arising out of extraordinary circumstances beyond her control. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish her case and in [2026:RJ-JP:15483-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-4966/2026] such circumstances, the judgment in the case of G.V. Infosutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (supra) is not applicable. 13. The reason for delay was ‘ignorance of law’ and same was rightly disallowed by the respondent. The petitioner has failed to substantiate genuine grounds for condolation of delay in submission of ITR, therefore, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner. 14. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MR/84