[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Abhay Rajendra Sanghvi vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 December, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10660/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10660 of 2025
==========================================================
ABHAY RAJENDRA SANGHVI
Versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, RAJKOT 1
==========================================================
Appearance:
CHIRANJEEV D TANDON(9678) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MAUNIL G YAJNIK(9346) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 11/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated
04.03.2025 passed by the respondent authority, rejecting the application
of the petitioner filed for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'IT Act').
2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Chiranjeev D. Tandon
appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, at the
relevant point of time, could not file the returns for the A.Y. 2022-23, in
view of the demise of his father. It is submitted that the petitioner filed an
application dated 02.03.2024 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking
condonation of delay in filing the return for A.Y. 2021-22 and 2022-23. It
is submitted that initially, the applications were rejected. Hence, the
petitioner requested the authority to review the decision and to allow the
application for the year 2021-22; however, the respondent authority, vide
communication dated 23.06.2025, informed the petitioner that the order
dated 04.03.2025 condoning the delay for filing the return for A.Y. 2022-
23 had been cancelled as the same was passed due to an inadvertent error,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10660/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
and for A.Y. 2021-22, the earlier order dated 25.11.2024, condoning the
delay, was confirmed. It is further submitted that the respondent
authorities erred in rejecting the application for filing the return for A.Y.
2022-23, since the ground of demise of his father was considered
positively while allowing the condonation of delay for filing the return
for A.Y. 2021-22. He further submitted that due to the demise of his
father on 19.12.2020, the income tax returns were filed belatedly and
hence, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside as it can be said
that the petitioner had faced genuine hardship.
2.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Tandon has
placed reliance on the Order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Special Civil
Application No.20543 of 2023 and the Judgment and Order dated
26.07.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.281 of 2022.
3. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr.Maunil Yajnik appearing for the
respondent has placed reliance on the contents of the affidavit filed by the
respondent and has submitted that the respondent authorities have, in fact,
partly allowed the application of the petitioner for A.Y. 2021-22 as the
authorities found that there was genuine hardship as the father of the
petitioner had passed away on 19.12.2020. However, it is submitted that
the same ground of genuine hardship cannot be extended for the year
2022-23.
4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties at length.
5. From the record it appears that the petitioner is the son of one Shri
Ranjendrabhai Sanghvi and is engaged in the business of marine and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10660/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
shipping agent in the name of proprietorship firm M/s Aries Marine,
located in Gandhidham Taluka, Kachchh, Gujarat. It is the case of the
petitioner that the accounts were being managed by his father, and when
he passed away in the year 2020, the returns were filed belatedly for the
A.Y. 2021-22 and 2022-23. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed an
application under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act for condoning the delay
and permitting him to file the returns belatedly.
6. It appears that initially, the application dated 02.03.2024 filed by
the petitioner seeking condonation of delay was allowed vide order dated
25.11.2024 with respect to A.Y. 2021-22 only. There appears to be a
typing mistake in the said order, as it mentions A.Y. 2018-19. Thus, there
was no order passed for A.Y. 2022-23. The petitioner thereafter filed the
return and claimed a refund of tax of Rs. 8,27,230/-.
7. Thereafter, the respondent, vide order dated 04.03.2025, again
adjudicated the application and rejected the condonation for filing the
returns for both A.Y. 2021-22 and 2022-23.
8. It appears that the respondent authority realised the mistake and
passed an order dated 23.06.2025, on a representation filed by the
petitioner, and recalled the order dated 04.03.2025 rejecting the
condonation of delay for A.Y. 2021-22. It is recorded vide order dated
04.03.2025 that the application seeking condonation of delay for filing
the return for A.Y. 2021-22 was inadvertently rejected. Thus, so far as the
delay in filing the return for A.Y. 2021-22 is concerned, it appears that
initially, the application was allowed vide order dated 25.11.2024;
however, subsequently, the respondent-Commissioner passed a contrary
order dated 04.03.2025 rejecting the application, which was without any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10660/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
authority of law. Having subsequently realised the mistake, the
respondent has rectified his stand and clarified that so far as the filing of
the return for A.Y. 2021-22 is concerned, the same is allowed in terms of
the order dated 25.11.2024. The respondent has condoned the delay for
filing the return for A.Y. 2021-22, realising the genuine hardship suffered
by the petitioner due to the demise of his father.
9. However, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the
return for the year 2022-23 has been rejected by the respondent
authorities vide order dated 04.03.2025, by holding that since the father
of the petitioner passed away in the year 2020, it can be presumed that at
the relevant time of filing the return for A.Y. 2022-23, the factum of
genuine hardship would not arise. We are in complete agreement with the
respondent on this aspect, since the genuine hardship caused to the
petitioner due to the death of his father in the year 2020, who was
handling the accounts, cannot be extended to A.Y. 2022-23.
10. We have noted that, curiously, the petitioner, being a proprietor of
M/s.Aries Marine, has filed the return on 26.03.2021 for A.Y. 2020-21.
The father of the petitioner passed away on 19.12.2020, and after his
death, being a proprietor, he filed his return on 26.03.2021; however,
strangely, he did not file the returns for A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022-23.
It appears that the respondent authority, while passing the impugned
order, failed to notice this vital aspect to the extent that the petitioner had
already filed the return on 26.03.2021 for A.Y. 2020-21 after the death of
his father; hence, the issue of genuine hardship would not arise for A.Y.
2021-22 also. Be that as it may, these facts establish non-application of
mind on behalf of the respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10660/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
11. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that
there was any genuine hardship at his end, in view of the demise of his
father on 19.12.2020, for not filing the return for A.Y. 2022-23.
Significantly, the petitioner did not face any hardship when he filed the
return on 26.03.2021 for A.Y. 2020-21. Thus, the contentions raised
before us as well as before the authorities regarding genuine hardship
faced by the petitioner in filing the returns, in view of the death of his
father, appear to be an afterthought. We are not inclined to interfere with
the order passed by the respondent authorities in denying the request
made by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay for filing the income
tax return for A.Y. 2022-23 on the ground of genuine hardship. The
Judgments and Orders on which reliance is placed will not apply to the
peculiar facts of the present case. However, we clarify that the respondent
shall not reopen the case of the petitioner relating to the filing of the
return for the year 2020-21 on the basis of the observations made by this
Court.
12. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails, and the same stands
rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
Radhika/ 4
