136 17.09.2026 Court No. 10 AGM In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 15731 of 2024 M/s. Devbhumi Realtors Pvt. Ltd. -Versus- The Income Tax Officer (OT & WT), Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi & Ors. Mr. Avra Majumdarf. Ms. Alisha Das. Ms. Elina Dey. Ms. Rupomita Ghosh. Ms. Sreeja Mukherjee. …for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Sharma. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Agrahari. … for the respondents. 1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the arbitrariness and illegality in the action of the respondent no. 1 in passing the impugned order dated 8.4.2024 under Section 119(2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „said Act‟) whereby the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the revised return and claim of refund amounting to Rs. 13,95,78,300/- for the assessment year 2019-20 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a defective notice under Section 139(9) of the said Act dated 20.2.2020 was uploaded on the common portal of the Income Tax Department, whereas the petitioner did not receive the same either through e-mail or speed post. 3. The petitioner submits that the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 was filed on 30.10.2019 under 2 Section 139 (1) of the said Act. However, the same was invalidated by the CPC Bengaluru. 4. The petitioner submits that thereafter a representation was made for condonation of delay in filing the revised return. 5. By an order under Section 119(2) (b) of the said Act, dated 8.4.2024, the application for condonation of dealy was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to furnish sufficient reasons with regard to the delay in filing the return at a belated stage. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that such rejection of the prayer for condoning the delay in filing the revised return is arbitrary, inviolation of the principles of natural justice, not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to the set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the following judgments which are as follows: i. Nileshmukar Uttamchand Rathod –versus- Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Ahmedabad & Anr reported in 2024 (3) TMI 152. ii. Ming Sheng Xuan Limited Company –Versus- Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors reported in 2021 (4) TMI 596. iii. K. S. Baliwala & Ors. –versus- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 17, Mumbai & Ors reported in 2024(1) TMI 950. 3 8. The petitioner places reliance on the aforesaid judgments to demonstrate that where a case of genuine hardship has been made out by the petitioner, the claim for refund cannot be rejected simpliciter merely on the ground that delay has not been satisfactorily explained, particularly when the returns could not be filed in time. 9. The approach of the authorities should be justice oriented so as to advance the cause of justice. If refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund. 10. The petitioner submits that the basic object of Section 119(2) (b) of the said Act will be frustrated if a stringent view is taken by the authorities. 11. The order passed under the provision of Section 119(2) (b) does not come within the ambit of the order specified in Section 245 of the said Act and hence is not appealable. 12. The petitioner further relies upon another judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of K. S. Baliwala & Ors. –versus- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 17, Mumbai & Ors reported in 2024 (1) TMI 950 wherein it has been held that there cannot be a straight jacket formula to determine what constitutes genuine hardship. 13. The phrase “genuine hardship” used in Section 119 (2) (b) of the said Act should be considered liberally. “Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated.” 4 14. Learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Authorities strenuously argued and submits that the petitioner did not approach this writ court with clean hands. The return filed was found to be defective and a notice in that regard was uploaded on the common portal of the Income Tax Department. 15. The petitioner, instead of curing the defect, made a representation for condonation of delay. Thus, the order passed by the authority concerned under Section 119 (2) (b) does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity and has been rightly passed by the authority concerned and is sustainable in the eye of law. 16. Having heard the parties and upon perusing the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case warranting an interference at this stage. This Court has taken a judicial notice of the fact that all the relevant documents, including the judgments relied upon by the petitioner on the ground of condonation of delay in filing the revised return on the basis of a plea of genuine hardship, have been considered. The same should not be used as a straight jacket formula, otherwise the cause of justice shall be frustrated and defeated. 17. In view of the above, this Court allows the writ petition with the following directions: i. The order passed under Section 119 (2) (b) of the said Act for the assessment year 2019-2020 is hereby 5 quashed and set aside and the intimation issued under Section 245 of the said Act, shall remain stayed till the revised return is processed in accordance with law. ii. The petitioner is directed to upload the revised return within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order and the respondent authorities shall keep the portal open within a week after being duly communicated of this order to enable the petitioner to upload the revised return. 18. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition being WPA 15731 of 2024 is disposed of. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. ( Smita Das De, J.)